Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nM+9RuUNEcgehyQZU9VzSLjTGPsK4yGuK8+MLxvd09nkUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get
>> rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make
>> it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists
>> state.
>
> +1.  If it's not a configuration file anymore, it shouldn't be called
> one.

+1 to rename file

+1 to overall concept, just thinking same myself, not looked at patch yet

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexey Klyukin
Date:
Subject: Re: REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files
Next
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs