| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier |
| Date: | 2009-12-08 00:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1260232282.3665.161.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Why not just follow the example of postresql.conf?
>
> > Much better idea.
>
> Rather than reinventing all the infrastructure associated with GUCs,
> maybe we should just make the recovery parameters *be* GUCs. At least
> for all the ones that could be of interest outside the recovery
> subprocess itself.
>
> As an example of the kind of thing you'll find yourself coding if you
> make an independent facility: how will people find out the active
> values?
You're right, I was literally just writing that code.
Also, currently I have two parameters: wal_standby_info and
recovery_connections. If this was a GUC, then I could just have one
parameter: recovery_connections.
So, much agreed.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-12-08 00:35:51 | Re: Exclusion Constraint vs. Constraint Exclusion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-08 00:21:18 | Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier |