Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+6bC7M==bxZ3xUbFnXCEBzFY8F2DHQ=Nkjb0rBUG-1Kw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should commit_delay be PGC_SIGHUP?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 March 2013 18:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > This may be true, but so what? We don't generally restrict changing > GUC settings on the grounds that people probably won't wish to do so > because it isn't useful. We restrict it in situations where it is not > technically possible or is liable to be harmful. > > I'm of the opinion that we should try to keep as many things > PGC_USERSET as we possibly can. It makes life easier for DBAs. Only one setting will be best for the whole cluster, so neither the user nor the DBA gains if a user sets this to a different value than the one that has been determined to be optimal. Since we wait while holding the lock it is actually harmful to everyone if anybody sets a stupid value and might even be considered a denial of service attack. So there is a very good reason to make this SIGHUP, not just a whim. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: