On 2013-08-30 10:20:48 +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> > > The energy wasted in a good part of this massive 550+ messages thread is
> > > truly saddening. We all (c|sh)ould have spent that time making PG more
> > > awesome instead.
> > 
> > Perhaps not understood by all, but keeping PG awesome involves more than
> > adding every feature proposed- it also means saying no sometimes; to
> > features, to new GUCs, even to micro-optimizations when they're overly
> > complicated and offer only minimal or questionable improvements.
> Agreed, the current feature and proposal does not include pg_reload, and it
> introduces a full machinery we absolutely don't need.

The complexity in the last version of the patch I looked at wasn't in
the added grammar or pg_reload() (well, it didn't have that). It was the
logic to read (from memory)/write the config file and validate the
GUCs. That's needed even if you put it into some module. And it requires
support from guc.c/guc-file.l

> Grammar can be added later when the feature is stable.

Could you explain the advantages of this? It will require users to get
used to different interfaces and we will end up maintaining both just
about forever. And I don't see the grammar being that contentious?


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:

Reply via email to