From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch for 9.1: initdb -C option |
Date: | 2010-07-23 04:10:36 |
Message-ID: | 4C49163C.90700@ak.jp.nec.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2010/07/23 13:00), Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/7/22 KaiGai Kohei<kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
>> Anyway, it is an obvious feature, and seems to me works fine.
>
> So this makes it sound like you like the feature.
>
>> However, it is not clear for me how do we make progress this feature.
>> If we support a command to include other configuration, it also needs
>> to patch on the postgresql backend, not only initdb.
>
> I don't know what this means.
>
>> In my personal opinion, as long as you don't need any special configuration
>> under the single user mode or bootstraping mode launched by initdb,
>> we can modify it using shell script or others later.
>
> But here it sounds like you're saying we don't need the feature
> because may as well just edit postgresql.conf by hand.
>
> So I'm confused.
>
Sorry for the confusion.
What I wanted to say is the patch itself is fine but we need to make consensus
before the detailed code reviewing.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-07-23 05:01:55 | Re: security label support, part.2 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-23 04:00:09 | Re: Patch for 9.1: initdb -C option |