Re: Sample configuration files

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sample configuration files
Date: 2016-09-02 06:58:12
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaZ+vwNveqQtXAZeWGKWcBtKY+25sUpXOqa0gMHYJk=fA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> We have sample configuration files for postgresql.conf and
> recovery.conf, but we do not have them for contrib modules. This patch
> attempts to add them.
>
> Although the patch puts the sample configuration files in the tree, it
> doesn't try to install them. That's partly because I think it would
> need an extension version bump and that doesn't seem worth it.

I don't think that would need an extension version bump; we only need
that if we're changing which SQL objects get created. So my opinion
of this effort is:

1. If we're going to add these files, there's no reason not to install
them; in fact, not installing them makes the whole thing rather
pointless, as most people will only see the stuff that gets installed,
not uninstalled files in the source tree.

2. But I'm not sure that this will actually be useful to people. It
seems like it might just be one more thing for patch authors to
maintain. I think that if somebody wants to set a parameter defined
for a contrib module, it's easy enough to just add an entry into
postgresql.conf, or use ALTER SYSTEM .. SET. Going and finding the
sample file (which only sets the value to the default) and then
putting that into your postgresql.conf seems like an extra step.

Of course, others may feel differently and that is fine...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2016-09-02 07:07:58 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-09-02 06:57:48 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take