On 01/27/2013 01:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> More people seem to have voted for the single file approach but I still >>> haven't understood why... >> Me neither. Having an include directory seems good, but I can't think >> why we'd want to clutter it up with a bajillion automatically >> generated files. One .auto file that gets overwritten at need seems >> way nicer. > IMO an include directory containing just one file is silly. If we're > going with the single-file approach, let's lose the directory altogether > and just store the file at $PGDATA/postgresql.conf.auto. Wasn't part of the reason for having the config dir to make package managers' lives easier and make it easier to script updates to postgresql.conf? For the use of things like pg_wrapper?
I think the config dir has value even if a single .auto file is used, so that packages can drop their own config snippets into it. For example, if I installed a packaged extension that had its own postgresql.conf changes or new GUCs, I'd want it to be able to drop that into the configdir, not have to script changes to my postgresql.conf. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
