Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....

> Mark,
>
>> Well, I'm sure that one "could" use debian's solution, but that's the
>> problem, it isn't PostgreSQL's solution. Shouldn't PostgreSQL provide
>> the mechanisms? Will debian support FreeBSD? NetBSD? Is it in the
>> PostgreSQL admin manual?
>>
>> We are talking about a feature, like pg_service.conf, now that people
>> notice it, we are saying "WOW, this is the API we should push." This is
>> a functionality, IMHO, must be the responsibility of PostgreSQL.
>
> Then stop talking about it and write a patch.
>
> So far, you've failed to convince anyone else on this list that the
> functionality you suggest is actually useful for anyone other that you,
> personally.  The only way you're going to do so is to put up some code
> somewhere other people can use it and prove that it's useful.

Maybe I'm too used to working in engineering groups. I am trying to get
input for a project. Trying to iron out what the feature set should be and
the objectives that should be attained. BEFORE I start coding.

Just saying "submit a patch" is the antithesis to good engineering, it
works for hacking, but if I am going to develop a feature, I wish to do it
right and have it appeal to the broadest possible audience, collect as
much input about the needs of users, etc.

The feature set I am suggesting is, as been pointed out, similar to other
projects happening outside of PostgreSQL. The debian project for instance.
To say I am the only one that needs this, is of course, not true.

My frustration level often kills any desire to contribute to open source.
Sometimes, I think that open source is doomed. The various projects I
track and use are very frustrating, they remind me of dysfunctional
engineering departments in huge companies, it is very hard to positively
discuss any new ideas. The first response is always some variation on
"no."

Maybe it is that the whiteboard engineering discussion process doesn't
translate well to this medium.