Re: [GENERAL] starting PG command line options vs postgresql.con - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [GENERAL] starting PG command line options vs postgresql.con
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqS-s9wWbZsfJXkeBjgEWFhwdugWdHXTKv9_K5+b=KeySg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] starting PG command line options vs postgresql.con  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:48 AM, rakeshkumar464 <rakeshkumar464@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer using postgresql.conf.  what is the consensus in this forum
>> regarding command line vs postgresql.conf.
>
> I suspect that most people administering a PostgreSQL database would expect
> that the configuration file would be changed in lieu of passing options via
> the command line.

Disagreement here. For one, it makes pg_upgrade more complicated
because it would need to track and then rewrite postgresql.conf, or
just copy it temporarily. The current way of doing things gives the
best of both worlds.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] gin index trouble
Next
From: Rob Sargent
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] gin index trouble