On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 01:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> More people seem to have voted for the single file approach but I still
>>>> haven't understood why...
>>> Me neither. Having an include directory seems good, but I can't think
>>> why we'd want to clutter it up with a bajillion automatically
>>> generated files. One .auto file that gets overwritten at need seems
>>> way nicer.
>> IMO an include directory containing just one file is silly. If we're
>> going with the single-file approach, let's lose the directory altogether
>> and just store the file at $PGDATA/postgresql.conf.auto.
> Wasn't part of the reason for having the config dir to make package
> managers' lives easier and make it easier to script updates to
> postgresql.conf? For the use of things like pg_wrapper?
>
> I think the config dir has value even if a single .auto file is used, so
> that packages can drop their own config snippets into it. For example,
> if I installed a packaged extension that had its own postgresql.conf
> changes or new GUCs, I'd want it to be able to drop that into the
> configdir, not have to script changes to my postgresql.conf.
That was my understanding. But I just work here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
