On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:14 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> > I'm not convinced we ever *had* a consensus on this.  There were
> > proposals, but I'm not sure a majority ever bought into any one of
> 'em.
> > The whole problem of intermixing manual editing and programmatic
> editing
> > is just a big can of worms, and not everybody is prepared to give up
> the
> > former to have the latter.
> 
> Well, I think we have consensus that intermixing is impractical, which
> is why every further proposal is around having a separate file for the
> SQL-modified values.  And yes, we have a certain amount of "You'll get
> my carefully edited postgresql.conf when you pry it out of my cold, dead
> hands" going on.

  I think for that part it was discussed that always postgresql.conf values will override the values of .auto.
  
 
> The real consensus problem, AFAICT, is that while we have consensus that
> we would like something like SET PERSISTENT as an *option*, there's a
> Hurricane Sandy-sized Bikeshedding Windstorm about how, exactly, people
> would like it to work.  Personally, I would prefer the implementation
> which actually gets committed. ;-)

I think the original syntax is proposed by Robert Hass by reffering Oracle's syntax in below mail:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00953.php

and then finally the Syntax which I have used in my proposal was suggested by Tom in below mail:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00977.php


Do you see any discrepancy in the proposal I have sent and what have been concluded in previous discussions?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

• Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL at 2012-10-30 22:43:40 from Josh Berkus

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Amit Kapila	Date: 2012-10-31 03:39:34
	Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Previous:	From: Josh Kupershmidt	Date: 2012-10-31 03:14:19
	Subject: Re: Multiple --table options for other commands