Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments
Date
Msg-id CAA-aLv6ks4Ht444aHGVso-BALjNmfjEmAT=5cxHgaOMhTpSPVg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 24 November 2014 at 20:40, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
* Thom Brown (thom@linux.com) wrote:
> I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere (although it may have as I haven't
> read through the entire history of it), but would others find it useful to
> have ALTER SYSTEM support comments?

I do think it'd be useful.  I don't think 'inline' deserves inclusion
and just complicates it more than necessary (my 2c at least).  I'd just
do them all as 'headline' and wrap at 80 chars.
 
I guess it would ensure consistency.

I will point out that this use of COMMENT is novel though, no?  Comments
are normally handled as "COMMENT ON blah IS 'whatever';"  ALTER SYSTEM
is certainly special but I'm not sure I like the idea of having some
commands which support in-command COMMENT while others don't.

I typed that out in my original email, thought about it, then removed it because I decided that perhaps it isn't the same class as comment as COMMENT ON uses.  That affects objects, whereas this would apply to individual config parameters within a file.  Also bear in mind that if someone runs:

SHOW maintenance_work_mem;

And sees "4GB", they may decide to add a comment based on that, even though the source of that setting isn't postgresql.auto.conf.

Thom

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}