On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 13:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> > ... One file per GUC is certainly never going to fly though, it's
> > been hard enough getting people to accept going from one file to more than
> > one.
> One thing that concerns me a bit about the lack of consensus on that
> is what will happen if different config-adjustment tools adopt different
> philosophies. If Dimitri writes a tool that drops settings into per-GUC
> files, and you write one that puts them all in persistent.conf, and
> somebody tries to use both those tools, no good will come of it.
> If we forgot about the config-dir idea and just had one file that was
> meant to be hacked by automated tools, the problem would go away.
> However I suspect that that proposal won't fly, so we ought to think
> about providing some guidance to tools writers about what to do.
> Is there any consensus on how multiple config files actually get used
> over in the Apache/etc world?
Apache has an include functionality that supports wildcards etc... so I
And it just parses them.
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-10-27 18:31:38|
|Subject: Re: Delete cascade with three levels bug ? |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-10-27 18:06:10|
|Subject: Re: Parsing config files in a directory|