On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 03:15:07PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Well, Magnus' proposed implementation supposed that the existing values > >> *have* been loaded into the current session. I agree that with some > >> locking and yet more code you could implement it without that. But this > >> still doesn't seem to offer any detectable benefit over value-per-file. > > > > Well, value-per-file is ugly (imagine you've set 40 different variables > > that way) but dodges a lot of complicated issues. And I suppose "ugly" > > doesn't matter, because the whole idea of the auto-generated files is > > that users aren't supposed to look at them anyway. > > That's pretty much how I feel about it, too. I think value-per-file > is an ugly wimp-out that shouldn't really be necessary to solve this > problem. It can't be that hard to rewrite a file where every like is > of the form: > > key = 'value' > > However, as Josh said upthread, +1 for the implementation that will > get committed.
Why do you think its that ugly? It seems to me the one-value-per-file solution has the advantage of being relatively easy to integrate into other systems that manage postgres' configuration. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
