Andrew Dunstan wrote: > It also just strikes me as just the wrong way to go about solving the > apparent problem. If we want to make remote configuration or other > operations possible, then instead of granting access to server resident > files we should invent and implement an API that provides superusers the > appropriate operations. For one thing, this would mean that if we ever > decided to replace the current flat file system we use with something > else we need not break clients that use the API. Just granting file > access even if restricted to the data dir strikes me as a kludge.
I thought an API for postgresql.conf is what we agreed to, but I don't see it on the TODO list. Is that correct? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
