On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:52 PM Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> wrote:
> I don't think that's true of the second proposal in [0]. I don't foresee
> a noticeable runtime cost unless there is a plausible workload that
> involves very frequent updates to GUC settings that are also of interest
> to a bunch of extensions. Maybe I'll take a stab at a POC.
I'm not sure I fully understand that proposal, but I find it hard to
believe that we would seriously consider replacing every direct GUC
reference in the backend with something that goes through an API. Even
if didn't hurt performance, I think it would uglify the code a whole
lot.
And as Peter says, if we're not going to do that, then it's not clear
why extensions should have to.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com