Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to