On 08/01/2013 07:47 AM, David Johnston wrote: > Minor request: could someone enlighten me as to why making the directory > location a compile-time option is undesirable. Packagers then can setup > whatever structure they desire when they compile their distributions. In > which case the discussion becomes what is a reasonable default and that can > be made with respect of other defaults that are in place for people that > would self-compile.
Hey, that's a good idea. Anyone else? On 08/01/2013 06:32 AM, Greg Stark wrote:> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: >> we should review the implementation choice of the ALTER >> SYSTEM SET facility, and vote for having one-file-per-GUC. > > Zombie crazy design idea arise! > > I think people are going to laugh at us if an open source database > software can't manage a simple flat file database of settings, > especially one that is purely write-only and can be a simple dump of > settings that are set by alter system. While I find some value in the one-setting-per-file approach, there's also some major issues with it. And we already argued this out months ago, and ended up with the current single-file approach. Let's not rehash the past infinitely, please? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
