On 01/15/2015 02:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think your idea of adding read-only GUCs with the same names as all > of the recovey.conf parameters is a clear win. Even if we do nothing > more than that, it makes the values visible from the SQL level, and > that's good. But I think we should go further and make them really be > GUCs. Otherwise, if you want to be able to change one of those > parameters other than at server startup time, you've got to invent a > separate system for reloading them on SIGHUP. If you make them part > of the GUC mechanism, you can use that. I think it's quite safe to > say that the whole reason we *have* a GUC mechanism is so that all of > our configuration can be done through one grand, unified mechanism > rather than being fragmented across many files.
+1 I do find it ironic that the creator of the Grand Unified Configuration Settings is arguing against unifying the files. > Some renaming might be in order. Heikki previously suggested merging > all of the recovery_target_whatever settings down into a single > parameter recovery_target='kindofrecoverytarget furtherdetailsgohere', > like recovery_target='xid 1234' or recovery_target='name bob'. Maybe > that would be more clear (or not). Not keen on non-atomic settings, personally. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
