Re: Permanent settings
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Permanent settings |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20080219191844.GB17284@svr2.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Permanent settings (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Permanent settings
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 04:58:21PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > > Yeah, that may actually be a very good way to implement it. I don't like > > the idea of continously appending to an existing file, but if we did have a > > separate file with a tightly controlled format that would be doable. > > +1 > > Separating the automatically written configuration and the explicit user > configuration is definitely the right approach. My experience comes from > Debian where packages editing their own configuration files is verboten. > Otherwise you run into problems reconciling user-made changes and automatic > changes. > > The include file method is workable but isn't perfect. What happens if a user > connects with pgadmin and changes a parameter but that parameter is overridden > by a variable in the config file? Um, if you put the include statement at the bottom, isn't that the one that will override? > The alternative is to have two files and read them both. Then if you change a > variable which is overridden by the other source you can warn that the change > is ineffective. Ok, now I don't follow. If we use an include, we do have two files, and we read them both, no? > I think on balance the include file method is so much simpler that I prefer it. Yeah, that is one very clear argument for that method. Since there have been no major protests, I assume that if I can come up with reasonably pretty code without opening up any horrible holes, going by the include method is the way to go? //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: