On 6/19/19 12:46 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:20 PM Ian Barwick <ian.barw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 6/15/19 1:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Right. I think if possible, it should use existing infrastructure to
>> write to postgresql.auto.conf rather than inventing a new way to
>> change it. Apart from this issue, if we support multiple ways to edit
>> postgresql.auto.conf, we might end up with more problems like this in
>> the future where one system is not aware of the way file being edited
>> by another system.
>
> I agere that there should have been some effort put into making the way
> ALTER SYSTEM is modified be consistent between the backend and utilities
> like pg_basebackup (which would also help third party tools understand
> how a non-backend application should be modifying the file).
Did you mean to say "the way postgresql.auto.conf is modified"?
Yes, that is what we are discussing here. I think what we can do here
is to extract the functionality to set the parameter in .auto.conf
from AlterSystemSetConfigFile and expose it via a function that takes
(option_name, value) as a parameter.
Yup, I was just considering what's involved there, will reply to another
mail in the thread on that.
Then we can expose it via some
SQL function like set_auto_config (similar to what we have now for
set_config/set_config_by_name). I think if we have something like
that then pg_basebackup or any other utility can use it in a
consistent way.
Umm, but the point is here, the server will *not* be running at this point,
so calling an SQL function is out of the question. And if the server
is running, then you just execute "ALTER SYSTEM".
Regards
Ian Barwick
--
Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
