Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 20:11 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> It'd probably be worth changing the order of the ApplySetting calls so > >> that it doesn't look suspicious. > > > Just a comment would be enough I think > > Yeah. Changing the order would mean that we'd do extra work applying > and then removing conflicting settings. But the general principle here > is that GUC settings coming from different places are resolved by > source priority, not order of execution.
C comment patch attached and applied. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: src/backend/utils/init/postinit.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/init/postinit.c,v retrieving revision 1.201 diff -c -c -r1.201 postinit.c *** src/backend/utils/init/postinit.c 15 Jan 2010 09:19:04 -0000 1.201 --- src/backend/utils/init/postinit.c 5 Feb 2010 20:25:38 -0000 *************** *** 855,860 **** --- 855,861 ---- relsetting = heap_open(DbRoleSettingRelationId, AccessShareLock); + /* Later settings are ignored if set earlier. */ ApplySetting(databaseid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE_USER); ApplySetting(InvalidOid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_USER); ApplySetting(databaseid, InvalidOid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE);
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
