On 08/01/2013 07:47 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> Minor request: could someone enlighten me as to why making the directory
> location a compile-time option is undesirable. Packagers then can setup
> whatever structure they desire when they compile their distributions. In
> which case the discussion becomes what is a reasonable default and that can
> be made with respect of other defaults that are in place for people that
> would self-compile.
Hey, that's a good idea. Anyone else?
On 08/01/2013 06:32 AM, Greg Stark wrote:> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:12
PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> we should review the implementation choice of the ALTER
>> SYSTEM SET facility, and vote for having one-file-per-GUC.
>
> Zombie crazy design idea arise!
>
> I think people are going to laugh at us if an open source database
> software can't manage a simple flat file database of settings,
> especially one that is purely write-only and can be a simple dump of
> settings that are set by alter system.
While I find some value in the one-setting-per-file approach, there's
also some major issues with it. And we already argued this out months
ago, and ended up with the current single-file approach. Let's not
rehash the past infinitely, please?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
