On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:56:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > But creating a separate file doesn't fix that problem. It just moves > > it around. If people will expect comments in postgresql.conf to get > > preserved, then why won't they also expect comments in > > postgresql.conf.auto to get preserved? > > Because postgresql.conf.auto will have a nice leading comment telling > people (1) not to hand-edit the file, (2) if they do so anyway, > not to expect comments to be preserved, and (3) the place to do manual > editing of settings is postgresql.conf. > > > If the answer is "because postgresql.conf has always worked that way > > before", then add one more line to the proposed initial contents > > saying it's not true any more. > > Sorry, wrong answer. The objection to this is not whether you tell > people that you're taking away the ability to keep useful comments > in postgresql.conf, it's that you're taking away the ability. > > regards, tom lane
I like this approach. I was just wondering if there is a simple tweak to this schema to make it work more easily with standbys. If there was a GUC that controlled the 'auto filename' and it could expand something like %h to hostname (or name if we had something like standby registration). This would allow each standby to store its local settings in a different location and have something like a unified set of config files. I suppose something like symlinking postgresql.auto <hostname>.auto on each machine might achieve a similar effect... Garick > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers