Hi, On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:42:39 Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: > > Still far from convinced on that one. But effective_io_concurrency > > should be included even in the first pass. > I think a design that is limited to a prespecified set of GUCs is > broken by definition. It'd be better to make it work like > ALTER DATABASE SET. How should that work if there are conflicting settings in two tablespaces when tables from both are used? Some settings make sense per tablespace, but I dont see a valid model to accept e.g. 'standard_conforming_strings' set to 'off' in one and 'on' in the other...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
