On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> During the discussion of Alexey Klyukin's rewrite of ParseConfigFile,
> considerable unhappiness was expressed by various people about the
> complexity and relative uselessness of the custom_variable_classes GUC.
> While working over his patch just now, I've come around to the side that
> was saying that this variable isn't worth its keep. We don't have any
> way to validate whether the second part of a qualified GUC name is
> correct, if its associated extension module isn't loaded, so how much
> point is there in validating the first part? And the variable is
> certainly a pain in the rear both to DBAs and to the GUC code itself.
>
> So at this point I'd vote for just dropping it and always allowing
> custom (that is, qualified) GUC names to be set, whether the prefix
> corresponds to any loaded module or not.
Sounds sensible. One less thing to configure is a good thing.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
