On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:14 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 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
> > The whole problem of intermixing manual editing and programmatic
> > is just a big can of worms, and not everybody is prepared to give up
> > 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:
and then finally the Syntax which I have used in my proposal was suggested by Tom in below mail:
Do you see any discrepancy in the proposal I have sent and what have been concluded in previous discussions?
In response to
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|