On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joshua has been banging a drum for a while now that all this data needs to
get pushing into the database itself.
This is, very simply, not going to happen.
Right, there are also technical challenges in the way of that ideal. I
was only mentioning the reasons why it might not be the best idea even if
it were feasible. However, I do not see why the limitations you bring up
must get in the way of thinking about how to interact and manage the
configuration data in a database context, even though it ultimately must
be imported and exported to a flat file.
The concerns you bring up again about leaving the database in an
unstartable state are a particularly real danger in the "only has access
to 5432" hosted provider case that this redesign is trying to satisfy. I
added a "Gotchas" section to the wiki page so that this issue doesn't get
forgotten about. The standard way to handle this situation is to have a
known good backup configuration floating around. Adding something in that
area may end up being a hard requirement before remote editing makes
sense.
--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
