From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Issues with two-server Synch Rep |
Date: | 2010-10-12 01:44:11 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimKkOJYHakLDGp9qTFmLJtf1TQ8Ds6C2MTYDYjn@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That's probably not going to happen until we have a way to update
> postgresql.conf via SQL. Which, I maintain, as I have maintained
> before, is not going to happen until we get rid of the comments,
> because otherwise absolutely any implementation anyone proposes will
> get criticized for failing to handle them sensibly (because it is not
> possible to rewrite the file while handling the comments sensibly).
>
So we've been over this. All the pieces you need are already there:
you can handle this without any nasty comment grunging by just writing
the new setting to a postgresql.auto and including that from
postgresql.conf. Include a note in postgresql.auto warning users any
changes in this file will be thrown away when the file is rewritten.
This is the same method used in .emacs.custom or a million other
places people wanted automatically written config files.
Also incidentally pgadmin currently *does* rewrite postgresql.conf
while keeping the comments. I think that's not such a hot idea because
it interferes with things like debian configuration file management
and so on, but it's not impossible to do. It's just that separating
automatically written files from user-editable files is a better
long-term plan.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-12 01:48:57 | Re: Issues with two-server Synch Rep |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-12 01:43:31 | Re: Issues with two-server Synch Rep |