On Monday, December 03, 2012 8:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for reserving
> >>> PERSISTENT. Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET
> > I think this feature is more analagous to ALTER DATABASE .. SET or
> > ALTER ROLE .. SET. Which is, incidentally, another reason I don't
> > like SET PERSISTENT as a proposed syntax. But even if we stick with
> > that syntax, it feels weird to have an SQL command to put a line into
> > postgresql.conf.auto and no syntax to take it back out again.
>
> Neither of you have responded to the point about what "SET PERSISTENT
> var_name TO DEFAULT" will do, and whether it is or should be different
> from RESET PERSISTENT, and if not why we should put the latter into
> the grammar as well.
I have mentioned this in my previous mail but may be it has some problem
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-12/msg00062.php
The current behavior is
1. "RESET PERSISTENT ..." will delete the entry from postgresql.auto.conf
2. "SET PERSISTENT... TO DEFAULT" will update the entry value in
postgresql.auto.conf to default value
However we can even change "SET PERSISTENT... TO DEFAULT" to delete the
entry and then we can avoid "RESET PERSISTENT ..."
Opinions?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.