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
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 |