From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure
In-reply-to: <20220905233233.jhcu5jqsrtosmgh5@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <2982579.1662416866@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20220905233233.jhcu5jqsrtosmgh5@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 05 Sep 2022 16:32:33 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2994555.1662421822.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2022 19:50:22 -0400
Message-ID: <2994556.1662421822@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2994556.1662421822%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> It's only half related, but since we're talking about renovating guc.c: =
I
> think it'd be good if we split the list of GUCs from the rest of the guc
> machinery. Both for humans and compilers it's getting pretty large. And
> commonly one either wants to edit the definition of GUCs or wants to edi=
t the
> GUC machinery.

I don't mind doing that, but it seems like an independent patch.

			regards, tom lane