Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2011-09-24T17:04:05Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Restructure error handling in reading of postgresql.conf.
- d56b3afc0376 9.2.0 cited

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "not deal with" but part of pgpool-II's
>> functionality assumes that we can easily generate recovery.conf. If
>> reconf.conf is integrated into postgresql.conf, we need to edit
>> postgresql.conf, which is a little bit harder than generating
>> recovery.conf, I think.

> Since we haven't yet come up with a reasonable way of machine-editing
> postgresql.conf, this seems like a fairly serious objection to getting
> rid of recovery.conf.

I don't exactly buy this argument.  If postgresql.conf is hard to
machine-edit, why is recovery.conf any easier?

> What if we modified pg_ctl to allow passing configuration parameters
> through to postmaster,

You mean like pg_ctl -o?

			regards, tom lane