Re: Permanent settings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Permanent settings
Date
Msg-id 29166.1203550690@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Permanent settings  (Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>)
Responses Re: Permanent settings  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Permanent settings  (paul rivers <rivers.paul@gmail.com>)
Re: Permanent settings  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes:
> * Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> [080220 18:00]:
>> We need a server-based tool for the manipulating postgresql.conf, and
>> one which is network-accessable, allows updating individual settings,

> Do we need to develop our own set of "remote management" tools/systems,
> or possibly document some best practices using already available "multi-
> server managment" tools?

Indeed.  If Josh's argument were correct, why isn't every other daemon
on the planet moving away from textual configuration files?

IIRC, one of the arguments for the config include-file facility was to
simplify management of multiple servers by letting them share part or
all of their configuration data.  One of the things that bothers me
considerably about all the proposals made so far in this thread
(including mine) is that they don't play very nicely with such a
scenario.  Putting a setting into one file that contradicts one made in
some other file is a recipe for confusion and less admin-friendliness,
not more.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: Permanent settings
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Permanent settings