Re: Reading recovery.conf earlier

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs  writes:
> > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:07 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Why not just follow the example of postresql.conf?
> 
> > Much better idea.
> 
> Rather than reinventing all the infrastructure associated with GUCs,
> maybe we should just make the recovery parameters *be* GUCs.  At least
> for all the ones that could be of interest outside the recovery
> subprocess itself.
> 
> As an example of the kind of thing you'll find yourself coding if you
> make an independent facility: how will people find out the active
> values?

You're right, I was literally just writing that code.

Also, currently I have two parameters: wal_standby_info and
recovery_connections. If this was a GUC, then I could just have one
parameter: recovery_connections.

So, much agreed.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com