Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 20:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I vote for #2. It's the least inconsistent --- we don't pay attention
>> to the registry for much of anything else, do we?
> Directly, no? Indirectly, we do. For every other TCP parameter
> (because the registry controls what we'll get as the default when we
> "just use things")
Not if we make the code use the RFC values as the defaults. I'm
envisioning the GUC assign hooks doing something like
#ifdef WIN32
if (newval == 0)
newval = RFC-specified-default;
#endif
so that the main GUC logic can still think that zero means "use the
default". We're just redefining where the default comes from.
This would be a change from previous behavior, but so what?
Implementing any functionality at all here is a change from previous
behavior on Windows. I don't have the slightest problem with saying
"as of 9.0, set these values via postgresql.conf, not the registry".
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
