Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Date
Msg-id 15799.1354380333@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL  (Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I 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 PERSISTENT"
> syntax and use, say, SET PERSISTENT var_name TO DEFAULT to mean that.
> (BTW, I wonder what behavior that syntax has now in your patch.)

In fact, rereading this, I wonder why you think "RESET PERSISTENT"
is a good idea even if there were no bison issues with it.  We don't
write RESET LOCAL or RESET SESSION, so it seems asymmetric to have
RESET PERSISTENT.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ... NOREWRITE option
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: --single-transaction hack to pg_upgrade does not work