Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2337.1310878799@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >>> Is there any way that we could get *rid* of custom_variable_classes? >> Well, we could just drop it and say you can set any dotted-name GUC >> you feel like. > ...and the fact that we've made them set an extra GUC to shoot > themselves in the foot hardly seems like an improvement. I was more > thinking along the lines of having loadable modules register custom > variable classes at load time, through some sort of C API provided for > that purpose, rather than having the user declare a list that may or > may not match what the .so files really care about. Well, we *do* have a C API for that, of a sort. The problem is, what do you do in processes that have not loaded the relevant extension? (And no, I don't like the answer of "let's force the postmaster to load every extension we want to set any parameters for".) I agree custom_variable_classes is conceptually messy, but it's a reasonably lightweight compromise that gives some error checking without requiring a lot of possibly-irrelevant extensions to be loaded into every postgres process. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: