Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52D7D8F6.5010304@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and
recovery.conf should be in it
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/15/14, 11:23 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote: >> In my mind, a conf.d directory is an extension of a single-file >> configuration, and so it should be handled that way. > > I'm apparently out on some funny limb with this thought, but I'll throw > it out there anyway- in my head, the 'postgresql.auto.conf' thing that > essentially ends up included as part of 'postgresql.conf' should be > handled the same way a single 'postgresql.conf' or 'conf.d' directory > is. Then one might as well argue that the pg_db_role_setting table be relocated to /etc. It's the same facility, only on a slightly different level. The fact that postgresql.auto.conf looks the same as a plain-text configuration file is an implementation detail. We could have chosen some binary format instead.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: