Greetings, On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 17:07 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM Ian Barwick > > <ian.barw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > In Pg12, the code in pg_basebackup implies the correct thing to do is > append to .auto.conf, > > > but as demonstrated that can cause problems with duplicate entries. > > > > Yeah. > > > > To me, forcing every tools author to use postgresql.conf parsing tools > > rather than just appending to the file is a needless burden on tool > > authors. > > > > OTOH, if we give license to all the tools that they can append to the > .auto.conf file whenever they want, then, I think the contents of the > file can be unpredictable. Basically, as of now, we allow only one > backend to write to the file, but giving a free pass to everyone can > create a problem. This won't be a problem for pg_basebackup, but can > be for other tools. I don’t think anyone was suggesting that tools be allowed to modify the file while the server is running- if a change needs to be made while the server is running, then it should be done through a call to ALTER SYSTEM. There’s no shortage of tools that, particularly with the merger in of recovery.conf, want to modify and manipulate the file when the server is down though. All that said, whatever code it is that we write for pg_basebackup to do this properly should go into our client side library, so other tools can leverage that and avoid having to write it themselves. Thanks! Stephen >
