On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Why not just follow the example of postresql.conf?
>
> > Much better idea.
>
> Rather than reinventing all the infrastructure associated with GUCs,
> maybe we should just make the recovery parameters *be* GUCs. At least
> for all the ones that could be of interest outside the recovery
> subprocess itself.
>
> As an example of the kind of thing you'll find yourself coding if you
> make an independent facility: how will people find out the active
> values?
You're right, I was literally just writing that code.
Also, currently I have two parameters: wal_standby_info and
recovery_connections. If this was a GUC, then I could just have one
parameter: recovery_connections.
So, much agreed.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
