From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |
Date: | 2013-08-21 04:40:32 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+4V15g7+HvGFRxkb4+6F1h2aAkG6FZHPML7y+u+OV-Cg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Stephen Frost escribió:
>> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> > Well, all the relative paths in include/includedir directives would be
>> > relative to the directory specified by the -c config_file param, which
>> > makes perfect sense. So the conf.d would work fine in your example.
>>
>> Why would include/includedir directives be relative to where the
>> 'config_file' GUC is set to instead of relative to where all the other
>> GUCs in postgresql.conf are relative to? That is a recipe for
>> confusion, imv.
>>
>> Of course, the current situation is quite terrible anyway, imv. Having
>> the GUCs be relative to whereever the user happens to run pg_ctl from is
>> pretty ugly- not to mention that the commented out 'defaults' won't
>> actually work if you uncomment them because the *actual* default/unset
>> value *is* in the data directory.
>
> Uh? See the docs:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/config-setting.html#CONFIG-INCLUDES
>
> " ... the postgresql.conf file can contain include directives, ...
> If the file name is not an absolute path, it is taken as relative to
> the directory containing the referencing configuration file."
You are right and I have checked code as well, it works in above
way for include directives.
Now the question I have in mind is that even if we can't
directly use include directive to enable/disable Alter
System and reading of auto file, how would a new GUC
enable_alter_system can solve all the things.
It can allow/disallow Alter System command, but how about
reading of auto file?
If we directly read auto file without considering
enable_alter_system, it can lead to chaos due to some un-safe
values, on the other side if we want to consider
enable_alter_system before reading file, it can complicate the
ProcessConfigFile() code.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-08-21 04:43:30 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-08-21 03:44:59 | Re: Back-patch change in hashed DISTINCT estimation? |