Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> You're not alone on this at all: I agree 100%. I don't like your
> proposed syntax, but I completely agree with your concern. I don't
> see what's wrong with having the initial contents of postgresql.conf
> look like this (these are the settings that are uncommented by default
> on my machine):

> # type "man postgresql.conf" for help on editing this file
> max_connections = 100
> shared_buffers = 32MB
> datestyle = 'iso, mdy'
> lc_messages = 'en_US.UTF-8'
> lc_monetary = 'en_US.UTF-8'
> lc_numeric = 'en_US.UTF-8'
> lc_time = 'en_US.UTF-8'
> default_text_search_config = 'pg_catalog.english'

I'm not sure if anybody is particularly against the initial contents
looking like that. The big problem, which both you and Dimitri are
conveniently ignoring, is that if people are allowed to hand-edit
the file they are going to introduce comments that no mechanical
parser will do a nice job of preserving. And they're not going to be
happy when SET PERMANENT has a side-effect of throwing away their
comments.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with Josh's proposal of keeping
machine-generated and person-generated text in separate files. Dimitri
complains that the behavior will be confusing if there are conflicting
settings, but I think that's hogwash. We already have the ability for
pg_settings to tell you which file, and even which line, set the active
value of the setting. It's not going to be hard for people to figure
that out.

regards, tom lane