On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 01/27/2013 01:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> More people seem to have voted for the single file approach but I still >>>> haven't understood why... >>> Me neither. Having an include directory seems good, but I can't think >>> why we'd want to clutter it up with a bajillion automatically >>> generated files. One .auto file that gets overwritten at need seems >>> way nicer. >> IMO an include directory containing just one file is silly. If we're >> going with the single-file approach, let's lose the directory altogether >> and just store the file at $PGDATA/postgresql.conf.auto. > Wasn't part of the reason for having the config dir to make package > managers' lives easier and make it easier to script updates to > postgresql.conf? For the use of things like pg_wrapper? > > I think the config dir has value even if a single .auto file is used, so > that packages can drop their own config snippets into it. For example, > if I installed a packaged extension that had its own postgresql.conf > changes or new GUCs, I'd want it to be able to drop that into the > configdir, not have to script changes to my postgresql.conf.
That was my understanding. But I just work here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
