Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)
Date
Msg-id 28958.1019433227@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)  (Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes:
> Hmm. In looking at SET, why couldn't we develop this as an extendable
> capability a la pg_proc?

Well, my thoughts were along the line of providing specialized parsing
subroutines tied to specific GUC variables.  There already are
parse_hook and assign_hook concepts in GUC, but possibly they need a
little more generalization to cover what these variables need to do.

If you're suggesting setting up an actual database table, I'm not
sure I see the point.  Any system parameter is going to have to be
tied to backend code that knows what to do with the parameter, so
it's not like you can expect to do anything useful purely by adding
table entries.  The C-code tables existing inside guc.c seem like
enough flexibility to me.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)