Andreas Pflug wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> > >>Isn't the pg_hba.conf situation quite the same as postgresql.conf? The > >>GUCs with pg_settings is the GUC like a table, but with comments that > >>exceed config_generic.long_desc. > > > > > > Well, pg_hba.conf is ordered, > > From a text editor user's view, postgresql.conf is ordered too. I'd be > annoyed if some function would screw it up; same with comments which are > deliberately placed where they are.
True, but there is no purpose to modify the ordering of postgresql.conf, while with pg_hba.conf, there is a need to do that. Also, postgresql.conf has a fixed set of lines, while pg_hba.conf doesn't. > > which is different, and it more of a > > columnar values that postgresql.conf. > > Hm, pg_settings gives me the same picture. Yes, we could use that for updates, rather than SET GLOBAL. Good point. However, it seems SET GLOBAL is a cleaner API, while we can't use such a nice API for pg_hba.conf. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
