Re: Merging postgresql.conf and postgresql.auto.conf

From: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Merging postgresql.conf and postgresql.auto.conf
Date: 2015-01-14 16:27:12
Message-ID: CAD21AoDmnba2W4VF3mcYy4YkhvPdR0gfB4QuxHYBAiaoeSB2vQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yes. The entire reason that postgresql.auto.conf is separate is that
>>> we despaired of reading and rewriting postgresql.conf automatically
>>> without making a hash of material in the comments. Calling the logic
>>> a "merge tool" does not make that problem go away.
>
>> The merge tool do not only to merge the all parameters in two
>> configuration into one file but also to remove duplicate parameters.
>> That is, the configuration files will be one file in logically.
>
> I'll just say one more time that if we thought this could work, we'd not
> have arrived at the separate-files design to begin with. You can work
> on it if you like, but I will bet a good deal that you will not end up
> with something that gets accepted.
>

Yep, I don't intend to propose again that.
Because I thought that the maintaining of configuration file will be
complicated,
so I just thought we can add supporting tool.

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-01-14 16:38:41 Re: Re: Patch to add functionality to specify ORDER BY in CREATE FUNCTION for SRFs
Previous Message Gabriele Bartolini 2015-01-14 16:22:37 Re: [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC