Simon Riggs wrote:
> Whereas in process_settings() the sequence is this
>
> ApplySetting(databaseid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE_USER);
> ApplySetting(InvalidOid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_USER);
> ApplySetting(databaseid, InvalidOid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE);
>
> which looks to me like database-role specific settings are overridden by
> both user and database specific ones, in contrast to how the docs
> describe this.
Yeah, except that set_config_option contains this bit:
/* * Ignore attempted set if overridden by previously processed setting. * However, if changeVal is false then
plowahead anyway since we are * trying to find out if the value is potentially good, not actually use * it. Also
keepgoing if makeDefault is true, since we may want to set * the reset/stacked values even if we can't set the
variableitself. */ if (record->source > source) { if (changeVal && !makeDefault) {
elog(DEBUG3,"\"%s\": setting ignored because previous source is higher priority", name);
returntrue; } changeVal = false; }
> Not that bothered, but seems like the docs provide more useful behaviour
> and the code less useful.
It'd probably be worth changing the order of the ApplySetting calls so
that it doesn't look suspicious.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
