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