Mark Woodward wrote: > > Mark, > > > >> Well, I'm sure that one "could" use debian's solution, but that's the > >> problem, it isn't PostgreSQL's solution. Shouldn't PostgreSQL provide > >> the mechanisms? Will debian support FreeBSD? NetBSD? Is it in the > >> PostgreSQL admin manual? > >> > >> We are talking about a feature, like pg_service.conf, now that people > >> notice it, we are saying "WOW, this is the API we should push." This is > >> a functionality, IMHO, must be the responsibility of PostgreSQL. > > > > Then stop talking about it and write a patch. > > > > So far, you've failed to convince anyone else on this list that the > > functionality you suggest is actually useful for anyone other that you, > > personally. The only way you're going to do so is to put up some code > > somewhere other people can use it and prove that it's useful. > > Maybe I'm too used to working in engineering groups. I am trying to get > input for a project. Trying to iron out what the feature set should be and > the objectives that should be attained. BEFORE I start coding. > > Just saying "submit a patch" is the antithesis to good engineering, it > works for hacking, but if I am going to develop a feature, I wish to do it > right and have it appeal to the broadest possible audience, collect as > much input about the needs of users, etc.
You are 100% right here. Talking about it first is usually the best policy. One question I have is how this feature would be an improvement over just pointing pg_ctl at a postgresql.conf configuration file. That config file has the ability to specify most if not all server parameters. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
