On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> You could dig it out of the stack if it's there, but that doesn't fix >>> the race-condition aspect. Now a race is inevitable if two sessions try >>> to set the *same* variable, but I think people will be unhappy if a SET >>> on one variable makes a recent SET on some other variable disappear. > >> I think if we require an exclusive lock on a single global lock for >> "set permanent", people are quite ok with that, really. > > That doesn't fix it either, at least not without a whole lot of other > changes --- we don't normally read the config file within-commands, > and there are both semantic and implementation problems to overcome > if you want to do so.
Why would you need to? It seems to me that we ought to be able to rewrite a machine-generated configuration file without loading those values into the current session. If we can't, that seems like prima facie evidence that the format is not sufficiently easy to machine-parse. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers