On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Neil Conway wrote:
> Perhaps one of the slightly unfortunate consequences of the postmaster
> => postgres merge is that there is less of a clear distinction between
> "postmaster options" and "postgres" options...
I'd already read all of the documentation that you and Tom suggested just
before I sent my previous message, and I didn't find this subject clear at
all.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's not pgbench that is paying attention to this, it's libpq.
Right, but I wouldn't expect a typical pgbench user to know that.
> Anything you'd be allowed to SET can be set from PGOPTIONS (-c or --var
> syntax...the restrictions are the same as for the underlying variable.
That clarifies the situation well enough for me. I think this is a two
part problem then. It's not necessarily obvious that pgbench will use
PGOPTIONS. In addition to that, the current documentation is less clear
than it could be on the subject of what you can usefully put into
PGOPTIONS. That's two small documentation patches I should be able to
handle.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
