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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa+t2V7yUJLvkTc7a566bqDqSouz=HbEYAUd13wuV8Bug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> It's weird that SET LOCAL and SET SESSION actually *set* the value, and
> the second key word determines how long the setting will last.  SET
> PERSISTENT doesn't actually set the value.  I predict that this will be
> a new favorite help-it-doesn't-work FAQ.

I think this is another argument against this particular syntax.  I
have always thought that something along the lines of ALTER SYSTEM
would be more appropriate.  ALTER DATABASE .. SET and ALTER ROLE ..
SET don't change the value immediately either, and nobody gets
confused about that to my knowledge.  But I can see where SET
PERSISTENT could cause that sort of confusion.

...Robert



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Regex with > 32k different chars causes a backend crash
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: c language functions