Gregory Smith <gregsmithpg...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/26/14, 2:34 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> â I don't get where we "need" to do anything else besides that...the
>> whole "actual min values" comment is unclear to me.
> If you look at pg_settings, there is a minimum value exposed there as
> min_val. For some of these parameters, that number would normally be
> 1. But since we have decided that 0 is a special flag value, min_val is
> 0 instead.
Right.
> There are others where min_val is -1 for the same reason, where
> functionally the minimum is really 0. Some of us would like to see
> min_val reflect the useful minimum, period, and move all these special
> case ones out of there. That is a multi-year battle to engage in
> though, and there's little real value to the user community coming out
> of it relative to that work scope.
The impression I had was that Stephen was thinking of actually setting
min_val to 1 (or whatever) and handling zero or -1 in some out-of-band
fashion, perhaps by adding GUC flag bits showing those as allowable
special cases. I'm not sure how we would display such a state of affairs
in pg_settings, but other than that it doesn't sound implausible.
We could alternatively try to split up these cases into multiple GUCs,
which I guess is what you're imagining as a "multi-year battle". But
personally I think any such proposal will fail on the grounds that
it's too much compatibility loss for the value gained.
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
