<p dir="ltr">We don't need per guc locking. This is the whole objection Tom had about this patch being more complex
thanit has to be.<p dir="ltr">-- <br /> greg<div class="gmail_quote">On 1 Aug 2013 14:55, "Dimitri Fontaine" <<a
href="mailto:dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr">dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr</a>>wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote
class="gmail_quote"style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Greg Stark <<a
href="mailto:stark@mit.edu">stark@mit.edu</a>>writes:<br /> > I think people are going to laugh at us if an open
sourcedatabase<br /> > software can't manage a simple flat file database of settings,<br /> > especially one that
ispurely write-only and can be a simple dump of<br /> > settings that are set by alter system.<br /><br /> So you
sayit's easier to implement per-GUC locking semantics correctly<br /> when using a single file with multiple units of
informationthat all are<br /> of the same type? Interesting.<br /><br /> Maybe the storage should actually be a shared
catalog,in fact.<br /><br /> Regards,<br /> --<br /> Dimitri Fontaine<br /><a href="http://2ndQuadrant.fr"
target="_blank">http://2ndQuadrant.fr</a> PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support<br /><br /><br /> --<br />
Sentvia pgsql-hackers mailing list (<a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<br
/>To make changes to your subscription:<br /><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers"
target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><br/></blockquote></div>
