Tom, all,

  I'm not one to give up a fight (I hope that's something ya'll like
  about me ;), but in this case I'm gonna have to concede.  Clearly, I'm
  in the minority about this, at least on the lists and among the active
  hackers.  Let me just say that I hope all the happy users of this will
  outweigh the complaints.  I suppose there's only one way to find out.



* Tom Lane ( wrote:
> Stephen Frost <> writes:
> > * Robert Haas ( wrote:
> >> I think you're getting way too hung up on the fact that the proposed
> >> auto.conf will be stored as a flat file.  From your comments upthread,
> >> I gather that you'd be rejoicing if it were a table.  
> > I'd be happy if it was a table which managed an *independent* set of
> > parameters from those used to bootstrap the system, but no one seems to
> > like breaking up the options between "things that can be sanely modified
> > without other OS changes" and "things which require OS support".
> I agree with Robert's comments upthread that if the new facility can't do
> everything that can be done today by editing postgresql.conf, it's not
> going to be adequate.  So I'm not in favor of having two sets of
> parameters.  It's also not clear to me that we can make a reliable
> distinction between parameters that can prevent a server restart vs those
> that can't; or at least, the set of the latter will be much smaller than
> one could wish.
>                       regards, tom lane

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to