Re: Explicit config patch 7.2B4

Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> I'll have to echo Mark's query, though: Why are you fighting this, Peter?

Peter's not the only one who's unhappy.

> This functionality mirrors the standard behaviour for daemons.

That's been Mark's primary argument all along, and what it ignores is
that the standard behavior for daemons is designed around the assumption
that a system is running only one copy of any given daemon. That's a
fine assumption for most daemons but an unacceptable one for Postgres.

I'm prepared to accept some kind of compromise on this issue, but I'm
really tired of hearing the useless "other daemons do it this way"
argument. Could we hear some more-relevant argument?

I rather liked Peter's idea of treating the feature as an implicit
inclusion. Maybe there's an even-better approach out there, but so far
that's the best idea I've heard.

> Name a standard daemon package other than postgresql that
> automatically assumes the config is with dynamic data, and overwrites
> an existing config when the dynamic data area is reinitialized.

initdb will not overwrite an existing config. Try it.

> However, it wouldn't surprize me in the least for a distributor
> such as Red Hat to apply this patch.

Oh, I doubt it...

regards, tom lane
Red Hat Database project