On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Keep in mind that 9.3 is still wet behind the ears and many many people >>> haven't adopted it yet. If we do what you're suggesting then we're >>> creating a completely useless inconsistency that will nonetheless affect >>> all those future adopters ... while accomplishing nothing much for those >>> who have already installed 9.3. The latter are not going to have these >>> GUCs in their existing postgresql.conf, true, but there's nothing we can >>> do about that. (Hint: GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE doesn't actually *do* anything, >>> other than prevent the variable from being shown by SHOW ALL, which is not >>> exactly helpful here.) > >> Well, I guess what I'm really wondering is whether we should refrain >> from patching postgresql.conf.sample in 9.3, even if we add the GUC, >> just because people may have existing configuration files that they've >> already modified, and it could perhaps create confusion. > > If we don't update postgresql.conf.sample then we'll just be creating > different confusion. My argument above is that many more people are > likely to be affected in the future by an omission in > postgresql.conf.sample than would be affected now by an inconsistency > between postgresql.conf.sample and their actual conf file.
I don't really have a horse in the race, so I'm OK with that if that's the consensus. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
