On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Why not just follow the example of postresql.conf? > > > Much better idea. > > Rather than reinventing all the infrastructure associated with GUCs, > maybe we should just make the recovery parameters *be* GUCs. At least > for all the ones that could be of interest outside the recovery > subprocess itself. > > As an example of the kind of thing you'll find yourself coding if you > make an independent facility: how will people find out the active > values?
You're right, I was literally just writing that code. Also, currently I have two parameters: wal_standby_info and recovery_connections. If this was a GUC, then I could just have one parameter: recovery_connections. So, much agreed. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
