On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 09:51, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:21:12AM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > RPMs aren't a good enough reason to put it in. All features aren't
> > installed in an RPM, why would this need to? Besides, anything that
> > is runtime configurable can end up getting its default changed on a
> > whim. Then again as long as 7.2.1 is stable enough for me there's
> > no reason to upgrade 'cuze I damn sure ain't going back and changing
> > all sorts of programs and scripts that have global users.
>
> So, Vince, do you have problems with the various GUC based optimizer
> hooks getting set to other than the default? I'd think you'd notice
> if suddenly indexscans all went away, or any of these:
>
> #enable_seqscan = true
> #enable_indexscan = true
> #enable_tidscan = true
> #enable_sort = true
> #enable_nestloop = true
> #enable_mergejoin = true
> #enable_hashjoin = true
>
> My point is that your resistance to a GUC controlled runtime configurable
> on the basis of 'it might get changed accidently' makes little sense to
> me, given all the other runtime config settings that never do get changed.
> What makes you think this one will be more susceptible to accidental
> flipping?
>
> I'm not sure who's 'whim' it is that your afraid of: perhaps you have a
> paticularly sadistic DBA to deal with? ;-) And of course, this being
> free software and all, noone is forcing an upgrade on you.
AND, I thought the general consensus was **AWAY** from configure time
directives and to GUC variables whenever **POSSIBLE**.
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
