Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Date
Msg-id 513EF01C.7050403@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3/11/13 12:19 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Think also about the case where someone wants to change multiple
> values together and having just some set and not others would be
> inconsistent.

Isn't that an argument for syntax to make an exception though?  If 
starting from a blank slate I would say this case should be:

SET PERSISTENT (POSTPONE) maintenance_work_mem='2GB';
SET PERSISTENT work_mem='2GB';

That's jumping right over a few rounds of simpler ways to do this, and 
just going right to the approach we know allows adding more such options 
later with minimal grammar impact.
From the perspective of what a useful minimal commit looks like, I 
would think 90% of the use cases here expect immediate reload of just 
the postgresql.conf--but probably not pg_hba.conf--and any other 
refinement could wait until a next release.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect handling of timezones with extract
Next
From: Albe Laurenz
Date:
Subject: Re: Column defaults for foreign tables (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)