Greg Smith wrote:
>Joshua has been banging a drum for a while now that all this data needs to
>get pushing into the database itself. The GUCS data is clearly structured
>tables, you'll open up the potential to add a whole new class of
>user-friendly applications for making configuration easier to manage.
>However, I don't fully agree with taking that idea as far as Joshua has
>suggested (only having the config data in the database), because having
>everything in a simple text file that can be managed with SCM etc. has
>significant value. It's nice to allow admins to be able to make simple
>changes with just a file edit. It's nice that you can look at all the
>parameters in one place and browse them. However, I do think that the
>internal database representation must be capable of holding everything in
>the original postgresql.conf file and producing an updated version of the
>file, either locally or remotely, as needed.
Depending on the complexity you want to have inside the generator, one
could imagine a middle ground solution like:
Where the "database-generated.conf" does not necessarily needs a lot of
>Josh has the actual brains behind such an app all planned out if you look
>at his presentations, but without the larger overhaul it's just not
>possible to make the implementation elegant.
IMHO Greg's response is the most comprehensive and well-thought-through
contribution in the whole GUC thread.
Stephen R. van den Berg.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-06-02 13:51:39|
|Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2008-06-02 10:24:26|
|Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS|