| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent settings |
| Date: | 2008-02-20 23:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | 29166.1203550690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> writes:
> * Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> [080220 18:00]:
>> We need a server-based tool for the manipulating postgresql.conf, and
>> one which is network-accessable, allows updating individual settings,
> Do we need to develop our own set of "remote management" tools/systems,
> or possibly document some best practices using already available "multi-
> server managment" tools?
Indeed. If Josh's argument were correct, why isn't every other daemon
on the planet moving away from textual configuration files?
IIRC, one of the arguments for the config include-file facility was to
simplify management of multiple servers by letting them share part or
all of their configuration data. One of the things that bothers me
considerably about all the proposals made so far in this thread
(including mine) is that they don't play very nicely with such a
scenario. Putting a setting into one file that contradicts one made in
some other file is a recipe for confusion and less admin-friendliness,
not more.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-02-20 23:47:26 | Re: Which MemoryContext? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-02-20 23:38:09 | Re: Permanent settings |