| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Permanent settings |
| Date: | 2008-02-21 15:02:34 |
| Message-ID: | 47BD928A.70602@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:14:27PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:42:02 -0500
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this discussion seems to me to be going off into the clouds,
>>> where every objection is met with some still more elaborate scheme. I
>>> think we need to look at simple, incremental, and if possible
>>> backwards compatible changes.
>> The simplest solution I can think of is:
>>
>> Have a table pg_configuration (pg_settings?).
>>
>> Allow that table to be inserted into but not updated or deleted from.
>
> <snip>
>
> This pretty much kills the ability for people who *want* to edit things
> from the config file only, right? I don't think that's acceptable. At least
> not if it's at all avoidable, which I think it is.
I did mention in a reply that it could be optional :).
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-02-21 15:05:41 | Re: Permanent settings |
| Previous Message | Alexey Klyukin | 2008-02-21 14:35:06 | Re: Permanent settings |