On 3 January 2013 18:35, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> In my view, the biggest problem with recovery.conf is that the
>> parameters in there are not GUCs, which means that all of the
>> infrastructure that we've built for managing GUCs does not work with
>> them. As an example, when we converted recovery.conf to use the same
>> lexer that the GUC machinery uses, it allowed recovery.conf values to
>> be specified unquoted in the same circumstances where that was already
>> possible for postgresql.conf. But, you still can't use SHOW or
>> pg_settings with recovery.conf parameters, and I think pg_ctl reload
>> doesn't work either. If we make these parameters into GUCs, then
>> they'll work the same way everything else works. Even if (as seems
>> likely) we end up still needing a trigger file (or a special pg_ctl
>> mode) to initiate recovery, I think that's probably a win.
> I agree that it would be an improvement, and I would be happy just to
> see the parameters become GUCs.
That may be possible in 9.3 since we have a patch from Fujii-san. I'll
hack that down to just the GUC part once we start the next CF.
My personal priority is the shutdown checkpoint patch over that though.
> I'm just saying that I'll still be pushing to get rid of the requirement
> for recovery.conf in 9.4, that's all.
No pushing required. When we have a reasonable proposal that improves
on the current state, we can implement that.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2013-01-03 20:02:12|
|Subject: Re: Review of Row Level Security|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-03 19:33:35|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum
stress-testing our system|