On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Has the issue of changing custom_variable_classes from PGC_SIGHUP to
> PGC_SUSET been discussed? I am not sure whether that's an OK thing to
> do. If it is OK, then the documentation also needs updating.
>
> - This comment looks like leftovers:
>
> + /* FIXME: add PGC_EXTENSION so that we don't abuse PGC_SIGHUP here? */
> + SetConfigOption("custom_variable_classes",
> + newval, PGC_SIGHUP, PGC_S_EXTENSION);
>
> Apologies if I missed the previous discussion of this, but why are we
> adding a new GUC context?
Looking at this a little more, I am inclined to think that
ExtensionSetCVC() is entirely unacceptable. Our backend startup is
high enough already. Sequential scanning the pg_extension catalog on
every startup to spare the DBA the trouble of setting up
postgresql.conf strikes me as a bad trade-off. If you were to come
back and say that custom_variable_classes is a vile hack from the
darkest reaches of wherever vile hacks originate from, I would agree
with you. Having a GUC that controls what names can be used as GUCs
is probably a bad design, and I'd like to come up with something
better. But I don't think this is it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
