On 12/30/2015 10:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh.  The real problem here is that people are abusing the custom-GUC
> mechanism to implement session-lifespan variables.  I do not think we
> should encourage that; GUC offers neither adequate features for that
> (eg, no way to declare a variable's type) nor adequate performance
> (it's not going to scale to very many variables).

All true, but it works well enough today that it serves an often needed
role. And it is plenty fast, at least for use cases for which I've
needed it.

> I'd rather see us invent a real session-variable mechanism instead
> of putting yet more demands on GUC that have nothing to do with its
> primary mission, and indeed are antithetical to it.

Also true, but since no such effort exists today that I'm aware of,
there is little chance we will have that real mechanism any time in the
next 24 months at the least, because I doubt even the bikeshedding could
be finished before we lock down 9.6 :-(


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to