From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
Date: | 2008-06-06 16:22:39 |
Message-ID: | 3D652D3F-4642-4DC6-B883-E09240F196CE@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 5, 2008, at 23:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What comments do we consider machine-generated? Just the ones used
> to comment out settings, like
>
> #shared_buffers = 32MB
>
> or something else?
Those and documentation comments.
> If the automatic tool lets alone all other kind of comments, I think
> we're fine. In fact, it wouldn't necessarily need to modify those
> comments either, it could simply add a new setting line below that:
>
> #shared_buffers = 32MB
> shared_buffers = 1024MB
Well, we've been talking about having varying levels of documentation
in the comments of the file based on the options passed to the
configuration program. I think that these are the primary concern,
though Greg, please do correct me if I'm mistaken.
> For extra safety, it could comment out old settings, perhaps with
> something like this:
>
> #shared_buffers = 32MB
> #shared_buffers = 1024MB # commented out by wizard on 2008-06-05
> shared_buffers = 2048MB
>
> This would preserve a full change history in the file. It would
> become quite messy after a lo of changes, of course, but a user can
> trim the history by hand if he wants to.
I guess that could be a feature. Personally, I use a vcs system for
that.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-06-06 16:25:06 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-06-06 16:21:57 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |