Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11010.949078779@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Ответы |
GUC (Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> Added to TODO: >> * Unify configuration into one configuration file > ... and that is a good example of database design because?? ;) Good point ;-). OTOH, the existing mishmash of config files and option-setting methods isn't a good example of any kind of design. It "just grew". One thing to consider while contemplating a grand unified config file (GUC?) is that much of this stuff needs to be settable per-client. It would be wrong to rip out whatever dynamic option-setting code there is. Cleaning it up and making a more uniform interface to the various options does sound like a good project though. I'd want to see a paper design for how things should work before any coding starts --- the existing methods do have some non-obvious advantages. For example, even something as grotty as the PGOPTIONS environment variable has its uses: you can pass options through to a backend without needing explicit cooperation from your client application. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: