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
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? |