On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 2:52 PM Chapman Flack <c...@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
