Sean Chittenden wrote:
> I think Tom's big objection is the abuse of the GUC system for
> maintaining this information. Having thought about this some, I think
> the GUC system is pretty well suited for this and that Tom's objection
> (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that GUC has a non-hierarchical
> naming structure/convention. With a hierarchical structure, lumping
> of GUC variables becomes more reasonable and the naming is more
> systematic. Instead of, "jail_read_only_transaction=true" it'd be
> "security.force_readonly=true" or "transaction.readonly_always=true".
Agreed on the usefulness of GUC. I had trouble adding security for
logging settings not because GUC wouldn't work but because the logging
control had to hit several different variables that all had different
API's. It had to allow _increase_ for some variables and not others.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
