Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Date: 2013-01-26 12:46:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYb_1vdJWTS_nx2FnpSdk6KOE+wjfVTt_JQQN4HkUb8Dw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> More people seem to have voted for the single file approach but I still
> haven't understood why...

Me neither. Having an include directory seems good, but I can't think
why we'd want to clutter it up with a bajillion automatically
generated files. One .auto file that gets overwritten at need seems
way nicer.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2013-01-26 14:56:08 Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC
Previous Message Francois Tigeot 2013-01-26 12:00:35 Re: SYSV shared memory vs mmap performance