Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-08-30T13:49:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> there's a fairly generous but fixed-at-startup-time limit on how many
> segments you can have.  In practice I don't think this matters much,
> but it was a sobering reminder that the main shared memory segment,
> with all of its inflexibility, has important reliability properties
> that are hard to replicate in more dynamic scenarios.

Why wouldn't it be possible to have the same arrangment for
shared_buffers, where you have more entires than you 'need' at startup
but which then allows you to add more shared segments later?  I do see
that we would need an additional bit of indirection to handle that,
which might be too much overhead, but the concept seems possible.  Isn't
that more-or-less how the kernel handles dynamic memory..?

> Under the currently-proposed design, it can't be used to do any such
> thing.  It can only be used to modify some auto.conf file which lives
> in $PGDATA.  It's therefore no different from the ops perspective than
> ALTER DATABASE or ALTER USER - except that it allows all settings to
> be changed rather than only a subset.

Claiming that modifying a file *included from a file in /etc* doesn't
modify things under /etc is disingenuous, imv.

	Thanks,

		Stephen