Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Really? [ pokes around ... ] Hm, you're right, because
>>> add_placeholder_variable() sets the GUC_NO_SHOW_ALL flag, and in this
>>> usage it'll never be cleared. I wonder if we should change that.
>>>
>>> The whole thing is a bit of an abuse of what the mechanism was
>>> intended for, and so I'm not sure we should rejigger GUC's behavior
>>> to make it more pleasant, but on the other hand if we're not ready to
>>> provide a better substitute ...
>
>> While I agree with that part, is there any actual *reason* why we
>> shouldn't have the custom variables included in pg_settings?
I've needed it myself before -- I think it is a good idea.
> IIRC, the motivation for doing that was to not expose a completely bogus
> set of attributes for a variable whose defining C-module hadn't been
> loaded yet.
>
> I thought about this in the shower just now, and ISTM that if we want to
> turn this into an actual feature rather than a kluge, there needs to be
> some sort of "define variable" command that sets up a custom variable
> and specifies its type (and whatever other properties seem worth
> setting). IOW expose the DefineCustomFooVariable functions to SQL users.
>
> I'd be a bit inclined to restrict the namespace that can be set up that
> way, eg allow only "local." or "session." as the prefix. Maybe
> that's just being too anal, but we could guarantee not to introduce
> colliding built-in GUCs in future releases, whereas people trying to
> define variables with any random name would definitely be at risk.
>
> Comments?
Would it make sense to have built-in GUCs belong to "pg_catalog." and
user defined GUCs default to "public."?
Joe
