On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:20 PM Ian Barwick <ian.barw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6/15/19 1:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Right. I think if possible, it should use existing infrastructure to > >> write to postgresql.auto.conf rather than inventing a new way to > >> change it. Apart from this issue, if we support multiple ways to edit > >> postgresql.auto.conf, we might end up with more problems like this in > >> the future where one system is not aware of the way file being edited > >> by another system. > > > > I agere that there should have been some effort put into making the way > > ALTER SYSTEM is modified be consistent between the backend and utilities > > like pg_basebackup (which would also help third party tools understand > > how a non-backend application should be modifying the file). > > Did you mean to say "the way postgresql.auto.conf is modified"? >
Yes, that is what we are discussing here. I think what we can do here is to extract the functionality to set the parameter in .auto.conf from AlterSystemSetConfigFile and expose it via a function that takes (option_name, value) as a parameter. Then we can expose it via some SQL function like set_auto_config (similar to what we have now for set_config/set_config_by_name). I think if we have something like that then pg_basebackup or any other utility can use it in a consistent way. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
