On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I just don't buy it. With the instructions in the file, a program
>> that rewrites the file will fail miserably on every installation out
>> there (or will be full of logic that tries, futilely, to parse the
>> comments). With the instructions out of the file, a program that
>> rewrites the file will work just fine on all installations except
>> those that have chosen to do the thing you describe above. And we can
>> tell people "don't do that any more, because it'll mess up the
>> automated tools".
>
> No, you *think* you might be able to tell people that. It is not
> going to fly. It is especially not going to fly when the automated
> tools are still just pie-in-the-sky rather than real live commonly
> used tools.
>
> Please re-read what Greg had to say.
Well, there is obviously a difference of opinion on this topic, and
that is fine. I have reread what Greg said, and it seems to me that
we are arguing two sides of the same coin. Greg believes that it
isn't politically feasible to change the default postgresql.conf, now
or perhaps ever. I notice that he didn't say that he thinks it's a
bad idea. So he has come up with an alternate plan which he believes
is the best one possible considering that limitation.
I don't particularly disagree with his conclusion that his plan is the
best one possible without changing the current format; but I am not
sure that I agree that his plan will actually work. I especially
don't believe that it will ever support SET PERSISTENT, which I
believe to be a feature a lot of people want. Perhaps you have an
idea how that will happen?
...Robert
