On Monday, March 04, 2013 7:26 AM Greg Smith wrote:
> On 3/3/13 8:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Neither of those names is consistent with any other PGDATA
> subdirectory
> > name we use. It should just be config, or perhaps pg_config, though
> the
> > latter risks confusion with the tool of the same name.
>
> I'd be just as happy with config/ as the directory name. I have a bias
> toward wanting this to look like Apache that I've been scolded for
> before, I forgot to avoid that this time.
>
> > FWIW, I do think that having "auto" or some such in the file name(s)
> > would be a good idea, to help warn people off editing them manually.
>
> I can see that for the file name itself, as long as it's not in the
> directory name. I don't like giving the idea that everything in there
> is automatically generated. config/persistent-auto.conf or
> config/persist-auto.conf maybe?
>
> The way files are sorted by name means that using
> config/auto-persist[ent].conf would make the file more likely to be
> processed before other things in that directory. I could live with
> that
> order too. I think it is important to name the file such that it
> suggests being connected to the SET PERSISTENT feature though.
If we want to link it with SET PERSISTENT feature, we can choose name as you
suggest or
config/auto.persistent.conf?
If we see the current files postgresql.conf, recovery.conf etc, it seems
most are related
to the functionality it provides. For example recovery.conf suggests that it
contains settings for doing recovery.
The current name postgresql.auto.conf has been chosen to make it's
connection with user editable
postgresql.conf. I thought it will give impression to user that this
contains settings similar to postgresql.conf
but this file is auto generated, so it can't be editable by user.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.