Обсуждение: Does pg_settings.sourcefile/sourceline work on Windows?
I'm betting not, because I don't see any support for copying their
values down to child processes in
write_nondefault_variables/read_nondefault_variables.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm betting not, because I don't see any support for copying their > values down to child processes in > write_nondefault_variables/read_nondefault_variables. Correct, it does not. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm betting not, because I don't see any support for copying their
>> values down to child processes in
>> write_nondefault_variables/read_nondefault_variables.
> Correct, it does not.
OK. I can fix that while I'm busy hacking on guc.c. Does anyone care
enough about this to think it should be back-patched?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm betting not, because I don't see any support for copying their >>> values down to child processes in >>> write_nondefault_variables/read_nondefault_variables. > >> Correct, it does not. > > OK. I can fix that while I'm busy hacking on guc.c. Does anyone care > enough about this to think it should be back-patched? I think it's worthwhile if the patch can be applied fairly easily to the older branches. If not, I don't think it's worth worrying about. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> OK. �I can fix that while I'm busy hacking on guc.c. �Does anyone care
>> enough about this to think it should be back-patched?
> I think it's worthwhile if the patch can be applied fairly easily to
> the older branches. If not, I don't think it's worth worrying about.
It's a pretty trivial patch. Will do.
regards, tom lane