Greg Smith wrote: >Joshua has been banging a drum for a while now that all this data needs to >get pushing into the database itself. The GUCS data is clearly structured
>tables, you'll open up the potential to add a whole new class of >user-friendly applications for making configuration easier to manage. >However, I don't fully agree with taking that idea as far as Joshua has >suggested (only having the config data in the database), because having >everything in a simple text file that can be managed with SCM etc. has >significant value. It's nice to allow admins to be able to make simple >changes with just a file edit. It's nice that you can look at all the >parameters in one place and browse them. However, I do think that the >internal database representation must be capable of holding everything in >the original postgresql.conf file and producing an updated version of the >file, either locally or remotely, as needed. Depending on the complexity you want to have inside the generator, one could imagine a middle ground solution like: include "database-generated.conf" include "local-overrides.conf" Where the "database-generated.conf" does not necessarily needs a lot of comments. >Josh has the actual brains behind such an app all planned out if you look >at his presentations, but without the larger overhaul it's just not >possible to make the implementation elegant. IMHO Greg's response is the most comprehensive and well-thought-through contribution in the whole GUC thread. -- Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers