Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: 2011-01-23 02:42:26
Message-ID: 806.1295750546@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Oh, you're complaining about SetConfigOption, not the assign hooks.

> I was actually complaining about the latter, and then switched gears
> to the former. I'm an equal-opportunity complainer today, I guess...

It does strike me that we could provide SetConfigOptionInt,
SetConfigOptionBool, and SetConfigOptionReal for the benefit of callers
who'd prefer to pass values in those formats. They'd still do sprintf
internally, but this would make the call sites a bit cleaner.

In a quick tally, though, I see only a couple of potential callers for
SetConfigOptionInt, perhaps a dozen for SetConfigOptionBool, and none at
all for SetConfigOptionReal. Hence not sure it's worth the trouble.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message XiaoboGu 2011-01-23 02:45:27 postgresql-9.0.2-1-windows_x64 from EnterpriseDB can't install on Win 7 home basic 64 bit
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-01-23 02:31:57 Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2