Re: Parsing config files in a directory

Hi,

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Let's NOT start that discussion again.

Don't worry, no aim here to.

> Overall, I'm seeing this patch proposal suffer from an extreme excess of
> bike-shedding.

Not only that. See above.

> My proposal is this:
>
> (1) that we support the idea of a patch which allows people to add
> directory includes to postgresql.conf, in the same manner that we now
> support file includes, with files in the included directory to be
> processed alphanumerically.

+1

> (2) that we put out a TODO for making the configuration variables which
> take lists able to take an accumulator as well as an assignment, syntax
> TBA.

+1

> These two above seem like nice, small incremental changes to 8.5 which
> require no sweeping redesigns of how people handle conf files, but do
> allow people who want to develop new management strategies to do so.

+1

What made us have this long a thread is the premise that having the
include directory facility will make any good to solving the problem of
editing the configuration from a program. So everyone tried either to
explain how it helps or solves it, or to explan how it does not help at
all. My position is the later, as I hope to have made clear before.

But you're very right when saying that this facility is worth it
independantly of how much it helps solving the programatic API to
configuration.

Regards,
--
dim