On 01/15/2015 02:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think your idea of adding read-only GUCs with the same names as all
> of the recovey.conf parameters is a clear win. Even if we do nothing
> more than that, it makes the values visible from the SQL level, and
> that's good. But I think we should go further and make them really be
> GUCs. Otherwise, if you want to be able to change one of those
> parameters other than at server startup time, you've got to invent a
> separate system for reloading them on SIGHUP. If you make them part
> of the GUC mechanism, you can use that. I think it's quite safe to
> say that the whole reason we *have* a GUC mechanism is so that all of
> our configuration can be done through one grand, unified mechanism
> rather than being fragmented across many files.
+1
I do find it ironic that the creator of the Grand Unified Configuration
Settings is arguing against unifying the files.
> Some renaming might be in order. Heikki previously suggested merging
> all of the recovery_target_whatever settings down into a single
> parameter recovery_target='kindofrecoverytarget furtherdetailsgohere',
> like recovery_target='xid 1234' or recovery_target='name bob'. Maybe
> that would be more clear (or not).
Not keen on non-atomic settings, personally.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com