Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation
Date
Msg-id 4ED6353E0200002500043676@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: autovacuum and default_transaction_isolation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> For the moment I duplicated the existing logic of overriding
> relevant GUC variables in the process's Main() function,
Thanks!
> but I wonder if we ought to be setting these things in some more
> centralized place, like InitPostgres().  That function already
> knows quite a bit about what sort of process it's initializing ...
It does seem like the sort of thing which might get missed when
creating a new type of process or a new GUC which needs this type of
treatment.  Whichever placement seems most likely to get noticed
seems best; one centralized placement seems to me most likely to
attract notice and the necessary thought on the topic
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Large number of open(2) calls with bulk INSERT into empty table
Next
From: Joel Jacobson
Date:
Subject: Re: Java LISTEN/NOTIFY client library work-around