From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |
Date: | 2010-10-14 20:37:07 |
Message-ID: | 4CB769F3.20400@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/14/2010 01:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Sure. I just lose comments. I'll live with that.
>> Actually, as part of this scheme, it would be nice if pg_settings had a
>> "comment" column, which would be optionally set with SET PERMANENT. Not
>> required, but nice to have.
>>
>> If we had that, I suspect that a lot fewer people would want a hand-edited
>> file.
> I have to say that I'm woefully unimpressed by the idea of trying to
> do anything with comments other than ignore them, even something this
> simple. There's no obvious way to know which comments go with which
> settings. You can make up a rule, such as "on the same line", but
> it's not necessarily going to be what people want. I think it's
> better to sidestep the issue entirely.
If the file is completely machine-maintained, including the comments, it
seems eminently doable. It's only if the file gets mangled by humans
that there's a problem.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-14 21:06:46 | Re: Path question |
Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2010-10-14 20:35:46 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |