On 08/24/21 14:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> cost would, I think, be quite terrible. If you really had to force
> everything through an API, I think what you'd want to do is define an
> API where code can look up a handle object for a GUC using the name of
> the GUC, and then hold onto a pointer to the handle and use that for
> future accesses, so that you don't have to keep incurring the expense
> of a hash table hit on every access. But even if you did that,
> preventing "unauthorized" writes to GUC variables would require a
> function call for every access.
I don't think that's true of the second proposal in [0]. I don't foresee
a noticeable runtime cost unless there is a plausible workload that
involves very frequent updates to GUC settings that are also of interest
to a bunch of extensions. Maybe I'll take a stab at a POC.
Regards,
-Chap
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6123C425.3080409%40anastigmatix.net
