Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments
| От | Thom Brown |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA-aLv6ks4Ht444aHGVso-BALjNmfjEmAT=5cxHgaOMhTpSPVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments
|
| Список | 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;
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: