On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 29.12.2010 10:36, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 18:12, Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Although maybe now that we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we >>> oughta continue in that vein and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL >>> GUCs rather than inventing a new function for it... >> >> That's definitely another option that I wouldn't object to if people >> prefer that way. > > I recall from previous discussions that we have a consensus that we should > unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, so that they're all GUCs and you > can put all the settings in postgresql.conf. Let's do that. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00033.php
Simon has argued that we should allow those parameters to be set in both recovery.conf and postgresql.conf for backward compatibility. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00017.php So I'm thinking to make ProcessConfigFile() parse not only postgresql.conf but also recovery.conf rather than move all the recovery parameters to postgresql.conf. Comments? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
