On 06/13/2013 05:35 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Friday, June 07, 2013 9:45 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:22 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 4:17 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:55 AM Amit Kapila wote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 9:49 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are 2 options to proceed for this patch for 9.4
>>>>
>>>> 1. Upload the SET PERSISTENT syntax patch for coming CF by fixing
>>> existing
>>>> review comments
>>>> 2. Implement new syntax ALTER SYSTEM as proposed in below mail
>>>>
>>>> Could you suggest me what could be best way to proceed for this
>>> patch?
>>>
>>> I'm still in favor of some syntax involving ALTER, because it's still
>>> true that this behaves more like the existing GUC-setting commands
>>> that use ALTER (which change configuration for future sessions)
>> rather
>>> the ones that use SET (which change the current settings for some
>>> period of time).
>>
>>
>> I will change the patch as per below syntax if there are no objections:
>>
>> ALTER SYSTEM SET configuration_parameter {TO | =} {value, | 'value'};
>
> Modified patch contains:
>
> 1. Syntax implemented is
> ALTER SYSTEM SET configuration_parameter {TO | =} {value, | 'value' |
> DEFAULT};
>
> If user specifies DEFAULT, it will remove entry from auto conf file.
>
> 2. File name to store settings set by ALTER SYSTEM command is still
> persistent.auto.conf
Why? Shouldn't it just be auto.conf? Or system.auto.conf?
I prefer auto.conf, personally.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com