| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Date: | 2011-09-23 16:20:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4E7CB1E6.5050207@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/20/2011 09:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I sympathise with this view, to an extent.
>
>> If we do an automatic include of recovery.conf first, then follow by
>> reading postgresql,conf then we will preserve the old as well as
>> allowing the new.
>
> I don't buy this argument at all. I don't believe that recovery.conf is
> part of anyone's automated processes at all, let alone to an extent that
> they won't be able to cope with a change to rationalize the file layout.
> And most especially I don't buy that someone who does want to keep using
> it couldn't cope with adding an "include" to postgresql.conf manually.
As Simon has already appropriately posted.... You would be incorrect.
Joshua D. Drake
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-23 16:37:18 | Re: Single pass vacuum - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-09-23 16:15:53 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |