Horton

Re: pg_primary_conninfo

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-13T04:52:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 29.12.2010 10:36, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 18:12, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Although maybe now that we've made recovery.conf use the GUC lexer we
>>> oughta continue in that vein and expose those parameters as PGC_INTERNAL
>>> GUCs rather than inventing a new function for it...
>>
>> That's definitely another option that I wouldn't object to if people
>> prefer that way.
>
> I recall from previous discussions that we have a consensus that we should
> unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, so that they're all GUCs and you
> can put all the settings in postgresql.conf. Let's do that.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00033.php

Simon has argued that we should allow those parameters to be set in
both recovery.conf and postgresql.conf for backward compatibility.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg00017.php

So I'm thinking to make ProcessConfigFile() parse not only postgresql.conf
but also recovery.conf rather than move all the recovery parameters to
postgresql.conf.

Comments?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center