Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Overhauling GUCS

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: 2008-06-02 16:22:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Tom Lane wrote:

> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
>> Joshua has been banging a drum for a while now that all this data needs to
>> get pushing into the database itself.
> This is, very simply, not going to happen.

Right, there are also technical challenges in the way of that ideal.  I 
was only mentioning the reasons why it might not be the best idea even if 
it were feasible.  However, I do not see why the limitations you bring up 
must get in the way of thinking about how to interact and manage the 
configuration data in a database context, even though it ultimately must 
be imported and exported to a flat file.

The concerns you bring up again about leaving the database in an 
unstartable state are a particularly real danger in the "only has access 
to 5432" hosted provider case that this redesign is trying to satisfy.  I 
added a "Gotchas" section to the wiki page so that this issue doesn't get 
forgotten about.  The standard way to handle this situation is to have a 
known good backup configuration floating around.  Adding something in that 
area may end up being a hard requirement before remote editing makes 

* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com Baltimore, MD

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-06-02 16:29:17
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2008-06-02 16:13:55
Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group