> Tim Holloway <mtsinc@southeast.net> writes:
> > Would it be objectionable if I altered the format of the pg_options
> > file slightly? I feel the need to handle a somewhat more complex
> > syntax for the logging subsystem.
>
> While I'm not particularly wedded to the pg_options format, I wonder
> whether it wouldn't be a better idea to create a separate file for
> the logging control data. If I'm reading your proposal correctly,
> the backend would no longer parse existing pg_options files --- and
> that's certain to make dbadmins unhappy, even if the fix is easy.
> Upgrades are always stressful enough, even without added complications
> like forced changes to config files.
>
> You could probably tweak the syntax so that an existing pg_options
> file is still valid, but that might be a bit too klugy. What's
> wrong with having two separate files? We can assume that this isn't
> a performance-critical path, I think.
With a 7.0 release, I think we can revamp that file without too many
complaints. pg_options file is fairly new, and it is an administrator's
thing, and only has to be done once. Seems like a revamp to make it
clear for all users would help. Having two files would mean explaining
that to people for ever.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
