GUC (Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates)
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | GUC (Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0001281949040.487-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-01-28, Tom Lane mentioned: > Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> Added to TODO: > >> * Unify configuration into one configuration file > > > ... and that is a good example of database design because?? ;) This has more to do with software administration than database design or databases in the first place. IMHO, o.c. > One thing to consider while contemplating a grand unified config file > (GUC?) Darn, I was gonna suggest that name. > is that much of this stuff needs to be settable per-client. > It would be wrong to rip out whatever dynamic option-setting code > there is. Cleaning it up and making a more uniform interface to the > various options does sound like a good project though. Nobody said anything about ripping out existing code. There just need to be defaults settable somewhere without entering -o -F -f -B -q -R -n all the time. I'm sure we can come up with something. > > I'd want to see a paper design for how things should work before any > coding starts --- the existing methods do have some non-obvious > advantages. For example, even something as grotty as the PGOPTIONS > environment variable has its uses: you can pass options through to > a backend without needing explicit cooperation from your client > application. So PGOPTIONS can be tied into the scheme. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: