| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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: | 2010-10-13 16:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | m2k4lmvzw4.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I'm not sure if anybody is particularly against the initial contents
> looking like that. The big problem, which both you and Dimitri are
> conveniently ignoring, is that if people are allowed to hand-edit
> the file they are going to introduce comments that no mechanical
> parser will do a nice job of preserving.
IMO the only reason why my proposal is sound is that is address the
point. Consider:
cat postgresql.conf.d/work_mem
16MB
This database needs at least such a value.
Note it's overridden in some ROLEs setup.
With such a format (name is filename, value is first line content's,
rest is comments), it's easy to preserve comments and have them machine
editable. What do I miss?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-10-13 16:15:05 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
| Previous Message | David Christensen | 2010-10-13 15:58:34 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |