Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])
Date: 2013-08-21 14:52:01
Message-ID: 20130821145201.GT2706@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Martijn,

* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog(at)svana(dot)org) wrote:
> ISTM you want some kind of hybrid setting like:
>
> #include_system auto.conf
>
> which simultaneously does three things:
>
> 1. Sets the enable_alter_system flag
> 2. Indicates the file to use
> 3. Indicates the priority of the setting re other settings.
>
> Comment it out, ALTER SYSTEM stop working. Put it back and it's
> immediately clear what it means. And the user can control where the
> settings go.

Yeah, that's certainly an interesting idea. I might call it
'auto_conf_file auto.conf' to avoid the '#include' concern and to
perhaps clarify that it's more than just a regular 'include'.

> Syntax is a bit fugly though.

Agreed.

Thanks,

Stephen
(who is still unhappy about the GUC-specific handling for relative
paths in postgresql.conf)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2013-08-21 15:05:20 Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-08-21 14:44:07 Re: Back-patch change in hashed DISTINCT estimation?