From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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 07:41:45 |
Message-ID: | m2r5fuy1xi.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 agree with Josh's proposal: keep mechanically-generated settings in a
> separate file, and don't even pretend to allow comments to be kept there.
And then, when you SET PERMANENT knob TO value (or whatever the syntax
is), you never know what value is selected at next startup or SIGHUP.
I know I'm alone on this, but I much prefer the all-machine-friendly
proposal that still makes it possible to hand-edit the files. You get
remote editing, comments, and the code is *very easy* to write.
The only drawback is that we're not used to it so it might look odd, or
outright ugly. I mean, the directory containing the files that you're
not supposed to edit manually at all any more looks strange. How big a
problem is that, when it allows for implementing the feature easily?
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pierre C | 2010-10-13 07:46:25 | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-10-13 07:19:27 | Re: Issues with two-server Synch Rep |