Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 20:11 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> It'd probably be worth changing the order of the ApplySetting calls so
> >> that it doesn't look suspicious.
>
> > Just a comment would be enough I think
>
> Yeah. Changing the order would me
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 20:11 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It'd probably be worth changing the order of the ApplySetting calls so
>> that it doesn't look suspicious.
> Just a comment would be enough I think
Yeah. Changing the order would mean that we'd do extra work apply
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 20:11 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It'd probably be worth changing the order of the ApplySetting calls so
> that it doesn't look suspicious.
Just a comment would be enough I think on ApplySetting to make it clear
that it really means ApplySettingIfNotAlreadySet()
--
Sim
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Whereas in process_settings() the sequence is this
>
> ApplySetting(databaseid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE_USER);
> ApplySetting(InvalidOid, roleid, relsetting, PGC_S_USER);
> ApplySetting(databaseid, InvalidOid, relsetting, PGC_S_DATABASE);
>
> which looks to me lik
In the docs it says
"It is also possible to tie a session default to a specific database
rather than to a role; see ALTER DATABASE. If there is a conflict,
database-role-specific settings override role-specific ones, which in
turn override database-specific ones."
Whereas in process_settings() th
