On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:36:54PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > 4) By shifting from a model where postgresql.conf is document-formatted and
> > hand-edited to one where it's machine generated, it becomes vastly easier to
> > write simple utilities to manage these settings. Right now, the big
> > "obstacle" to things like SET PERSISTENT is "how to we preseve the
> > hand-edited comments in the file" -- and the answer is we *don't.*
>
> What this sounds like is a sly way to try to get rid of postgresql.conf
> entirely and replace it with parameters stored in the database so admins would
> adjust the parameters using an SQL syntax rather than a text file.
>
> There are pros and cons of such a system but I think for newbie admins that
> would be a thousand times *more* baffling. You would have to learn new
> commands and have no holistic view of what parameters had been set, what
> related parameters might exist. You also have no way to keep the file in a
> version control system or sync across servers etc.
It doesn't have to be in the database. I kinda like Oracle's method
here; they default to storing config options in a binary file that
(iirc) you can change via commands, but they also provide a way to turn
that binary file into text (and back). That would allow for a lot of
options when it comes to configuring stuff.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
