Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> The whole config file is a joke. We'd never do it the way we do if we
>> were designing it from scratch,
>>
>
> Why not, pray tell? We did design it from scratch, once upon a time,
> and I don't see that the design is so obviously broken that we'd not
> do the same thing if starting over.
>
>
>> but we seem to be incapable of biting
>> the bullet and replacing it with something sane, which is why I have
>> ignored most of the current debate.
>>
>
> I guess we'll just go without the benefit of your superior intelligence
> then.
>
>
>
*sigh*
Time passes, and surely there are plenty of thing we wouldn't do the
same today if we had a chance to do them again from scratch. That's not
slamming anyone who was involved in the past. People made decisions
based on knowledge and experience at the time. Despite your sarcasm, I
don't claim any superior intelligence, but I also don't see the sorts of
things people are talking about making any great improvement.
I play with config files for a LOT of different pieces of software,
because a lot of what I do involves integrating disparate systems. Years
ago flatish config files were pretty common, but that's much less true
today. Even fairly old pieces of software like apache have some
provision for structure. My personal opinion (and that's all it is) is
that until we tackle that, the rest is just tinkering.
cheers
andrew