On Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:22 PM Cédric Villemain wrote: > Le samedi 17 novembre 2012 22:57:49, Tom Lane a écrit : > > Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Do we really need to store the settings in a system table? > > > Since WAL would be generated when storing the settings in a system > > > table, this approach seems to prevent us from changing the settings > > > in the standby. > > > > That's a really good point: if we try to move all GUCs into a system > > table, there's no way for a standby to have different values; and for > > some of them different values are *necessary*. > > > > I think that shoots down this line of thought entirely. Can we go > > back to the plain "write a file" approach now? I think a "SET > > PERSISTENT" command that's disallowed in transaction blocks and just > > writes the file immediately is perfectly sensible. > > I was justifying the usage of a table structure, not to keep it in sync > (just use it to hide the complexity of locks). > > Anyway that was just comments. Thanks. You comments are thought provoking. I was able to proceed for table related approach based on your suggestions.
With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
