| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Gurjeet Singh" <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh" <josh(at)schemaverse(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 20:09:02 |
| Message-ID: | m24nzfp9y9.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Well, we've identified a few people who like the idea, but I'm not
> sure we have the degree of consensus we normally look for before
> putting something on the TODO list. After the discussion on this
> thread, are there still any *objections* to allowing bounds or
> subsets to be SUSET to limit GUC values more strictly than the
> limits hard-coded in C?
No objection here, I like this whole idea. Adding the information
visible at the right places is a fun project in itself, too :)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-11 20:19:35 | Re: Dumping roles improvements? |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-10-11 20:00:05 | Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables? |