On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:14 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > I'm not convinced we ever *had* a consensus on this. There were > > proposals, but I'm not sure a majority ever bought into any one of > 'em. > > The whole problem of intermixing manual editing and programmatic > editing > > is just a big can of worms, and not everybody is prepared to give up > the > > former to have the latter. > > Well, I think we have consensus that intermixing is impractical, which > is why every further proposal is around having a separate file for the > SQL-modified values. And yes, we have a certain amount of "You'll get > my carefully edited postgresql.conf when you pry it out of my cold, dead > hands" going on.
I think for that part it was discussed that always postgresql.conf values will override the values of .auto. > The real consensus problem, AFAICT, is that while we have consensus that > we would like something like SET PERSISTENT as an *option*, there's a > Hurricane Sandy-sized Bikeshedding Windstorm about how, exactly, people > would like it to work. Personally, I would prefer the implementation > which actually gets committed. ;-) I think the original syntax is proposed by Robert Hass by reffering Oracle's syntax in below mail: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00953.php and then finally the Syntax which I have used in my proposal was suggested by Tom in below mail: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00977.php Do you see any discrepancy in the proposal I have sent and what have been concluded in previous discussions? With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
