Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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