Re: controlling the location of server-side SSL files
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-01-04T20:31:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> [ reasons ] > >> I agree with these reasons. We don't get charged $0.50 per GUC, so >> there's no particular reason to contort things to have fewer of them. > > Well, there definitely is a distributed cost to each additional GUC. > Peter's given what are probably adequate reasons to add several of them > here, but that doesn't mean we should not ask the question whether each > new GUC is really necessary. No argument. I'm merely saying that I think the rationale for these GUCs is solid enough to justify their existence. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company