Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21869.1360683928@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
changed via SQL [review]
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2013-02-12 20:19:43 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:55 PM Andres Freund wrote: >>> 1) You need to grab the lock before the value is checked since some >>> variables are interdependent (e.g. log_statement_stats, wal_level, >>> archive_mode) and thus the check needs to be made after preventing >>> concurrent changes. >> This can happen if we do any SIGHUP after the command, otherwise it will >> have old value only. > Yes, and thats a problem imo. That sounds to me like an entirely unreasonable requirement to put on the patch. There is no way to positively guarantee that a value with interdependencies will load successfully into other sessions, so why try to enforce it at all? I note also that trying to make the value active in the current session doesn't necessarily result in a meaningful configuration --- what if there's an active session-level SET, for instance? You can't just override that. (I've said this before, but this discussion smells of overdesign every time I look into the thread. I can't help thinking this is a big patch with a small patch struggling to get out.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: