On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:41 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > I'd further say something along the lines of 'utilities should not > > modify a postgresql.auto.conf that's in place under a running PostgreSQL > > cluster'. > > Do we need to differ between "external" and "internal" utilities here?
I don't think so..? Is there something there that you're thinking would be different between them?
Probably not. In general thinking that we could "allow" internal tools to do things externals shouldn't do, for example using internal APIs. But it's probably a bad idea to go down that road.
> > I'd rather say that 'any duplicate items should be removed, and a > > WARNING emitted when detected', or something along those lines. Same > > for comment lines... > > I think it's perfectly fine to silently drop comments (other than the one > at the very top which says don't touch this file).
I'm not sure why that's different? I don't really think that I agree with you on this one- anything showing up in that file that we're ending up removing must have gotten there because someone or something didn't realize the rules around managing the file, and that's a problem...
I'm not strongly against it, I just consider it unnecessary :)