On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Neil Conway wrote:

Perhaps one of the slightly unfortunate consequences of the postmaster
=> postgres merge is that there is less of a clear distinction between
"postmaster options" and "postgres" options...

I'd already read all of the documentation that you and Tom suggested just before I sent my previous message, and I didn't find this subject clear at all.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Tom Lane wrote:

It's not pgbench that is paying attention to this, it's libpq.

Right, but I wouldn't expect a typical pgbench user to know that.

Anything you'd be allowed to SET can be set from PGOPTIONS (-c or --var syntax...the restrictions are the same as for the underlying variable.

That clarifies the situation well enough for me. I think this is a two part problem then. It's not necessarily obvious that pgbench will use PGOPTIONS. In addition to that, the current documentation is less clear than it could be on the subject of what you can usefully put into PGOPTIONS. That's two small documentation patches I should be able to handle.

* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to