Re: SET variable - Permission issues

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
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>, 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 18:57:29
Message-ID: 4E949199.8030809@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/11/2011 11:53 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Is this a TODO? We might not want to make work_mem SUSET, but it
>> would allow administrators to control this.
>
> 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.

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

> 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 objections here.

Joe

--
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-10-11 19:02:56 Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-10-11 18:54:17 Re: Index only scan paving the way for "auto" clustered tables?