On 09/06/2015 11:17 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 9/6/15 3:34 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 09/02/2015 02:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
On 09/02/2015 02:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I think trying to duplicate the exact strings isn't too nice an
interface.
Well, for pg_controldata, no, but what else would you do for pg_config?
I was primarily looking at pg_controldata, so we agree there.
As for pg_config, I'm confused about its usefulness -- which of these
lines are useful in the SQL interface? Anyway, I don't see anything
better than a couple of text columns for this case.
There are production environments where even the superuser has no
direct, local, command line access on production database servers
But then they also have no use for the information that pg_config prints
out.
and the
only interface for getting information from postgres is via a database
connection. So to the extent pg_config and pg_controldata command line
binaries are useful, so is the ability to get the same output via SQL.
Given that, my own feeling is that if we provide a SQL interface at all,
it ought to be pretty much the exact same output as the command line
programs produce.
That argument makes no sense to me.
Again, we need to think about what actual use there is for this
information. Just because the information exists somewhere, but you
can't access it, doesn't mean we just need to copy it around.
I already gave a use case that you dismissed in favour of a vague
solution that we don't actually have. You seem to be the only person
objecting to this proposal.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
