| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | rakeshkumar464 <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: starting PG command line options vs postgresql.con |
| Date: | 2017-10-30 14:35:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS-s9wWbZsfJXkeBjgEWFhwdugWdHXTKv9_K5+b=KeySg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:48 AM, rakeshkumar464 <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer using postgresql.conf. what is the consensus in this forum
>> regarding command line vs postgresql.conf.
>
> I suspect that most people administering a PostgreSQL database would expect
> that the configuration file would be changed in lieu of passing options via
> the command line.
Disagreement here. For one, it makes pg_upgrade more complicated
because it would need to track and then rewrite postgresql.conf, or
just copy it temporarily. The current way of doing things gives the
best of both worlds.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2017-10-30 15:56:14 | Re: gin index trouble |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-30 14:35:36 | Re: gin index trouble |