From: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: guc patch: Make variables fall back to default values |
Date: | 2007-03-13 15:31:12 |
Message-ID: | 20070313153112.GA20582@mcknight.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:08:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, they *are* strings as long as they're "custom". Once a
> >> DefineCustomFoo has been executed, there (should be) no difference
> >> between a "custom" variable and a hard-wired one.
> > The code in question is the only place that calls one of the
> > DefineCustom*Variable functions. But those functions set
> > var->group = CUSTOM_OPTIONS what makes variables look like custom variables
> > defined via SQL or the config file but in reality they aren't. Hence the
> > confusion of the type assertion.
> My point here that you shouldn't be using var->group to make any
> semantic choices. That's supposed to be a label for user convenience,
> nothing else.
Then what is the criterion to tell what is a custom variable and what isn't?
If it contains a dot in the name it is? This wouldn't resolve the problem at
hand either... :-(
We might have to think about custom variables as a whole, what we have now
seems like a very unclear definition and everybody has his own opinion about
what it is and how it works (and I'm not excluding myself here :-)).
Joachim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-13 15:52:38 | Re: guc patch: Make variables fall back to default values |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-13 15:08:52 | Re: guc patch: Make variables fall back to default values |