Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Date: 2011-09-09 15:18:57
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+9RuUNEcgehyQZU9VzSLjTGPsK4yGuK8+MLxvd09nkUg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get
>> rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make
>> it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists
>> state.
>
> +1.  If it's not a configuration file anymore, it shouldn't be called
> one.

+1 to rename file

+1 to overall concept, just thinking same myself, not looked at patch yet

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bernd HelmleDate: 2011-09-09 15:30:02
Subject: Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs
Previous:From: Alexey KlyukinDate: 2011-09-09 15:17:04
Subject: Re: REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group