| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Josh Berkus'" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "'Christopher Browne'" <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-10-31 09:07:11 |
| Message-ID: | 007301cdb747$1d155230$573ff690$@kapila@huawei.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:25 AM Josh Berkus
> > I should think that doing this requires heading back towards there
> > being a single unique configuration stream, and over the course of
> > several versions, deprecating the INCLUDE directive.
>
> Oh, maybe I should take a closer look at Amit's proposal then. I
> thought we planned to make use of the INCLUDE facility for SET
> PERSISTENT, including supporting include-if-exists. Possibly what he's
> proposing and what I thought our last consensus were are highly
> divergent.
Currently INCLUDE is used for including postgresql.conf.auto in postgresql.conf by default.
Can you please let me know what is the expectation?
Instead of INCLUDE,
1. include-if-exists can be used.
2. In code first read .auto file then .conf and override the values read from .auto by values from .conf.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-31 09:10:45 | Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2012-10-31 08:59:18 | Re: Problem Observed in behavior of Create Index Concurrently and Hot Update |