| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |
| Date: | 2013-07-29 02:49:04 |
| Message-ID: | 6284.1375066144@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> I think if we can design conf.d separately for config files of management tools, then
>> it is better to have postgresql.auto.conf to be in $PGDATA rather than in
>> $PGDATA/conf.d
> One of the biggest current complaints about recovery.conf from
> Debian/Ubuntu users is the fact that it lives in $PGDATA. Won't we just
> get the same thing here?
I don't think that's the same case, but ... why exactly don't they like
recovery.conf, and can you show that the location of the file has
anything to do with the underlying complaint? Personally I bet it's
more about the confusion between configuration and triggering functions.
Until we can get those things separated, using recovery.conf to argue
about file locations will result in nothing but confusion and bad
design.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-07-29 03:13:34 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add GET DIAGNOSTICS ... PG_CONTEXT in PL/PgSQL |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-29 01:34:06 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |