Thanks for the answer. The code looks good to me. Thanks, Shihao
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > shihao zhong <zhong950...@gmail.com> writes: > > I do like the idea that we should keep the set and the altar system with > > the same behavior. But one thing I am worried about is the typo detected > > here because I usually make that type of mistake myself. I believe we > > should have an extra log to explicitly tell the user this is a `custom > > variable` guc. > > I don't think there's any chance of getting away with that. As noted > upthread, a lot of people use placeholder GUCs as a substitute for a > proper session-variable feature. If we ever get real session variables, > we could start to nudge people away from using placeholders; but right > now too many people would complain about the noise of a warning. > > > Btw, another aspect I want to better understand is if the superuser > session > > called pg_reload_conf with custom variables, does that mean these custom > > variables will override the other active transaction's SET command? > > No, a per-session SET will override a value coming from the config file. > That's independent of whether it's a regular or custom GUC. > > regards, tom lane >
