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