On 2013-08-01 15:17:04 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > We don't need per guc locking. This is the whole objection Tom had about > this patch being more complex than it has to be.
IIRC he objected to using locking *at all* because a simple one-file-per-setting approach should be used. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
