Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 10:36:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I kind of thought Tom said these were a bad idea, and I think I kind >> of agree.
> Tom had some concerns which I believe I've addressed. You haven't addressed them, you've simply ignored them. For the record, I think it's a bad idea to run arbitrary user-defined code in the postmaster, and I think it's a worse idea to run arbitrary user-defined code at backend shutdown (the END-blocks bit). I do not care in the least what applications you think this might enable --- the negative consequences for overall system stability seem to me to outweigh any possible arguments on that side. What happens when the supplied code has errors, takes an unreasonable amount of time to run, does something unsafe, depends on the backend not being in an error state already, etc etc? I do not have a veto over stuff like this, but if I did, it would not go in. >> We're not going to support multi-line values for GUCs >> AFAIK, so this is going to be pretty kludgy. > I'm not sure what you mean by "this". What he means by "this" is defining GUCs in a way that would make people want to use multi-line values for them. However, that doesn't have anything to do with my worries ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers