On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 09:29:01PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 09:19:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Uh, no, it's exactly *not* clear. There are a lot of GUCs that are only > > of interest to particular subsystems. I do not see why being a GUC makes > > something automatically more interesting than any other global variable. > > Usually, the fact that one is global is only so the GUC machinery itself > > can get at it, otherwise it'd be static in the owning module. > > > > As for "extensions should be able to get at the values", the GUC machinery > > already provides uniform mechanisms for doing that safely. Direct access > > to the variable's internal value would be unsafe in many cases. > > Then shouldn't we try to prevent direct access on all platforms rather than > only one?
Agreed. If Julian says 99% of the non-export problems are GUCs, and we can just export them all, why not do it? We already export every global variable on Unix-like systems, and we have seen no downsides. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
