On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On mån, 2012-01-02 at 23:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> > On mån, 2012-01-02 at 15:47 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> Were you thinking one option pointing to a directory or one option per >> >> file? >> >> > One option per file: >> >> That seems like serious overkill. Why not one option specifying the >> directory? What use-case is there for letting them be in different >> directories, let alone letting the DBA choose random names for each one? > > [ reasons ]
I agree with these reasons. We don't get charged $0.50 per GUC, so there's no particular reason to contort things to have fewer of them. It's nice where it's possible, of course, but not when it makes people contort things to support the way we think our users should lay out their filesystem. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
