On Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote: > On Monday, December 03, 2012 8:59 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >>> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for > reserving > > >>> PERSISTENT. Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET > > > I think this feature is more analagous to ALTER DATABASE .. SET or > > > ALTER ROLE .. SET. Which is, incidentally, another reason I don't > > > like SET PERSISTENT as a proposed syntax. But even if we stick with > > > that syntax, it feels weird to have an SQL command to put a line > into > > > postgresql.conf.auto and no syntax to take it back out again. > > > > Neither of you have responded to the point about what "SET PERSISTENT > > var_name TO DEFAULT" will do, and whether it is or should be different > > from RESET PERSISTENT, and if not why we should put the latter into > > the grammar as well. > > > The current behavior is > 1. "RESET PERSISTENT ..." will delete the entry from > postgresql.auto.conf > 2. "SET PERSISTENT... TO DEFAULT" will update the entry value in > postgresql.auto.conf to default value > > However we can even change "SET PERSISTENT... TO DEFAULT" to delete the > entry and then we can avoid "RESET PERSISTENT ..."
As per my understanding from the points raised by you, the behavior could be defined as follows: 1. No need to have "RESET PERSISTENT ..." syntax. 2. It is better if we provide a way to delete entry which could be done for syntax: "SET PERSISTENT... TO DEFAULT" If you don't have any objections, I will update the patch as per above 2 points. 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