On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:36:54PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > > 4) By shifting from a model where postgresql.conf is document-formatted and > > hand-edited to one where it's machine generated, it becomes vastly easier > > to > > write simple utilities to manage these settings. Right now, the big > > "obstacle" to things like SET PERSISTENT is "how to we preseve the > > hand-edited comments in the file" -- and the answer is we *don't.* > > What this sounds like is a sly way to try to get rid of postgresql.conf > entirely and replace it with parameters stored in the database so admins would > adjust the parameters using an SQL syntax rather than a text file. > > There are pros and cons of such a system but I think for newbie admins that > would be a thousand times *more* baffling. You would have to learn new > commands and have no holistic view of what parameters had been set, what > related parameters might exist. You also have no way to keep the file in a > version control system or sync across servers etc.
It doesn't have to be in the database. I kinda like Oracle's method here; they default to storing config options in a binary file that (iirc) you can change via commands, but they also provide a way to turn that binary file into text (and back). That would allow for a lot of options when it comes to configuring stuff. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
pgpevhyANSHLm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
