| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs |
| Date: | 2015-01-08 23:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 54AF17BF.9020903@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > c) Infrastructure for changing settings effective during recovery. Right
>> > now we'd have to rebuild a lot of guc infrasturcture to allow
>> > that. It'd not be that hard to allow changing parameters like
>> > restore_command, primary_conninfo, recovery_target_* et al. That's
>> > for sure not the same commit, but once the infrastructure is in those
>> > won't be too hard.
> Right, if that worked, then it would be a real win. But this discussion
> is about right now, and the perspective of the user.
That's rather a catch-22, isn't it?
Last I checked, it was our policy to try to get smaller, more discrete
patches rather than patches which try to change everything at once.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-09 00:49:24 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-01-08 22:34:37 | Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg |