Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>

Cc: 'Dimitri Fontaine' <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, cedric@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 'Greg Smith' <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, 'Josh Berkus' <josh@agliodbs.com>, 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus@hagander.net>, 'Christopher Browne' <cbbrowne@gmail.com>

Date: 2012-11-19T15:05:56Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila escribió:

> The only point I can see against SET PERSISTENT is that other variants of
> SET command can be used in
> transaction blocks means for them ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT functionality works,
> but for SET PERSISTENT,
> it can't be done. 
> So to handle that might be we need to mention this point in User Manual, so
> that users can be aware of this usage.
> If that is okay, then I think SET PERSISTENT is good to go.

I think that's okay.  There are other commands which have some forms
that can run inside a transaction block and others not.  CLUSTER is
one example (maybe the only one?  Not sure).

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services