Mark Woodward wrote:
> > 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.
You are 100% right here. Talking about it first is usually the best
policy.
One question I have is how this feature would be an improvement over
just pointing pg_ctl at a postgresql.conf configuration file. That
config file has the ability to specify most if not all server
parameters.
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +