| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PGC_S_DEFAULT is inadequate |
| Date: | 2011-05-11 04:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1305088479.5907.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2011-05-10 at 22:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> My conclusion about all this is that we really need to invent another
> GucSource value falling between PGC_S_DEFAULT and PGC_S_ENV_VAR,
> called perhaps PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT, for the purpose of denoting
> values that are defaults in terms of the precedence pecking order but
> are not simply the hard-wired boot values. There's no real need for
> clients to see the difference, so we could have the external
> representation in pg_settings be "default" for both, but guc.c really
> needs to be aware of which settings are truly boot values and which
> are not.
>
> Comments?
Makes a lot of sense.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Krogh | 2011-05-11 04:45:04 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-05-11 04:20:36 | pg_dump --serializable-deferrable |