| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent settings |
| Date: | 2008-02-20 18:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 14110.1203533026@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:27:25PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> For the point-and-drool crowd that can't cope with editing a text file,
>> perhaps the best avenue to having a GUI is to build it atop the
>> just-mentioned facility, namely
>>
>> 1. suck out the current settings.
>> 2. provide a GUI that manipulates the values.
>> 3. write back an entirely new postgresql.conf that doesn't take any
>> trouble to preserve what was there before.
> That's what we have now, and it basically forces each frontend to do the
> implementatino themselevs. E.g. pgadmin has one implementation, phppgadmin
> has another implementation, apparantly Greg has one implementation, there
> may be third party ones out there with their own implementation.
> The point is we need one implementatino that's in the server, because that
> takes away redundancy and it makes it easier to maintain.
The main part of that is the GUI, which is certainly not going to be in
the server, so I fail to see exactly what you think you're really
gaining.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-02-20 18:44:44 | Re: Permanent settings |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-02-20 18:38:03 | Re: Permanent settings |