From: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TODO questions |
Date: | 2005-08-24 18:23:51 |
Message-ID: | 430CBB37.40005@empires.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>>Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>
>>>o Allow commenting of variables in postgresql.conf to restore them
>>>to defaults
>>>
>>>This doesn't work already?
>
>
>>The idea here is the when you comment something out, it should restore
>>its default. Right now it keeps the previously uncommented out value,
>>which confuses people.
>
>
> But the contrary position is that a comment is a comment, not something
> that should act to change the state of the postmaster.
>
I understand what you mean, but to be fair, it's not the comment that is
changing the behavior of the postmaster. Rather, it's the absence of a
setting in the configuration file that would suggest using the default.
It seems to me like a question of whether the configuration file should
be treated as:
a) the set of options for the postmaster
b) a set of changes to the options for the postmaster
The current behavior is (b), but many think (a) is more intuitive in the
context of a configuration file. Perhaps (b) would be more intuitive if
it were in the context of (for example) an admin tool that took options
on standard input.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Hansen | 2005-08-24 18:53:47 | Re: FreeBSD ICU was Win32 unicode vs ICU |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-24 17:55:02 | Re: Sleep functions |