Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean by "not deal with" but part of pgpool-II's >> functionality assumes that we can easily generate recovery.conf. If >> reconf.conf is integrated into postgresql.conf, we need to edit >> postgresql.conf, which is a little bit harder than generating >> recovery.conf, I think.
> Since we haven't yet come up with a reasonable way of machine-editing > postgresql.conf, this seems like a fairly serious objection to getting > rid of recovery.conf. I don't exactly buy this argument. If postgresql.conf is hard to machine-edit, why is recovery.conf any easier? > What if we modified pg_ctl to allow passing configuration parameters > through to postmaster, You mean like pg_ctl -o? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers