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

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for reserving
>> PERSISTENT.  Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET PERSISTENT"
>> syntax and use, say, SET PERSISTENT var_name TO DEFAULT to mean that.
>> (BTW, I wonder what behavior that syntax has now in your patch.)
>
> In fact, rereading this, I wonder why you think "RESET PERSISTENT"
> is a good idea even if there were no bison issues with it.  We don't
> write RESET LOCAL or RESET SESSION, so it seems asymmetric to have
> RESET PERSISTENT.

I think this feature is more analagous to ALTER DATABASE .. SET or
ALTER ROLE .. SET.  Which is, incidentally, another reason I don't
like SET PERSISTENT as a proposed syntax.  But even if we stick with
that syntax, it feels weird to have an SQL command to put a line into
postgresql.conf.auto and no syntax to take it back out again.  We
wouldn't allow a CREATE command without a corresponding DROP
operation...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company