Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Stephen Frost escribió:
>> While I really like the 'include auto.conf' style, I'm starting to think
>> it may not be workable after all. Another thing to consider is if the
>> user decides to change that include line.. What happens when the DBA
>> tries to do a 'ALTER SYSTEM'? It'd still use the hard-coded auto.conf
>> file and happily update it, I imagine, but it won't actually get
>> included...
> Well, this whole line of discussion started because I objected to the
> whole code path that was trying to detect whether auto.conf had been
> parsed, and raised a warning if ALTER SYSTEM was executed and the file
> wasn't parsed.
I really, really don't think that we should be trying to detect or prevent
any such thing. If the user breaks it like that, he gets to keep both
pieces --- and who's to say it's broken, anyway? Disabling ALTER SYSTEM
might have been exactly his intent.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
