| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it |
| Date: | 2014-01-16 13:04:54 |
| Message-ID: | 52D7D8F6.5010304@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/14, 11:23 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
>> In my mind, a conf.d directory is an extension of a single-file
>> configuration, and so it should be handled that way.
>
> I'm apparently out on some funny limb with this thought, but I'll throw
> it out there anyway- in my head, the 'postgresql.auto.conf' thing that
> essentially ends up included as part of 'postgresql.conf' should be
> handled the same way a single 'postgresql.conf' or 'conf.d' directory
> is.
Then one might as well argue that the pg_db_role_setting table be
relocated to /etc. It's the same facility, only on a slightly different
level. The fact that postgresql.auto.conf looks the same as a
plain-text configuration file is an implementation detail. We could
have chosen some binary format instead.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Layton | 2014-01-16 13:20:05 | Re: [Lsf-pc] Linux kernel impact on PostgreSQL performance |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-01-16 13:01:55 | Re: Deprecations in authentication |