Обсуждение: A small update for postgresql.conf.sample
Attached is a small patch that adds a few comments for the settings that require restart. Applicable for 9.0+. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Вложения
2010/9/27 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > Attached is a small patch that adds a few comments for the settings that > require restart. Applicable for 9.0+. I'm not sure this is worth back-patching, but I've committed it to the master branch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Le 27/09/2010 15:18, Robert Haas a écrit : > 2010/9/27 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: >> Attached is a small patch that adds a few comments for the settings that >> require restart. Applicable for 9.0+. > > I'm not sure this is worth back-patching, but I've committed it to the > master branch. > +1 for backpatching. Otherwise, the fact that "requires restart" is not here doesn't mean anything (ie, doesn't mean if restart is required or not). Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. -- Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com
2010/9/27 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>: > Le 27/09/2010 15:18, Robert Haas a écrit : >> 2010/9/27 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: >>> Attached is a small patch that adds a few comments for the settings that >>> require restart. Applicable for 9.0+. >> >> I'm not sure this is worth back-patching, but I've committed it to the >> master branch. >> > > +1 for backpatching. > > Otherwise, the fact that "requires restart" is not here doesn't mean > anything (ie, doesn't mean if restart is required or not). > > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. No? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. > > I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for > people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. We don't overwrite .conf files during upgrades. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
2010/9/27 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. >> >> I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for >> people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. > > We don't overwrite .conf files during upgrades. All right, have it your way. Done. :-) (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun sep 27 09:45:57 -0400 2010: > > (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) > Did you use git cherry-pick? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
2010/9/27 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun sep 27 09:45:57 -0400 2010: > >> >> (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) >> > > Did you use git cherry-pick? Yes! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Robert Haas wrote: > 2010/9/27 Devrim G?ND?Z <devrim@gunduz.org>: > > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. > >> > >> I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for > >> people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. > > > > We don't overwrite .conf files during upgrades. > > All right, have it your way. Done. :-) > > (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) Uh, I have always been reluctant to backpatch changes to postgresql.conf.sample because those changes are going to be installed in share/postgresql.conf.sample during a minor upgrade. After that, if someone diffs their data/postgresql.conf with share/postgresql.conf.sample, they will see change that they did not make to postgresql.conf. Not sure you want to revert this changes, but I wanted to be sure people understood this behavior. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
2010/10/14 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>: > Robert Haas wrote: >> 2010/9/27 Devrim G?ND?Z <devrim@gunduz.org>: >> > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. >> >> >> >> I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for >> >> people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. >> > >> > We don't overwrite .conf files during upgrades. >> >> All right, have it your way. Done. :-) >> >> (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) > > Uh, I have always been reluctant to backpatch changes to > postgresql.conf.sample because those changes are going to be installed > in share/postgresql.conf.sample during a minor upgrade. After that, if > someone diffs their data/postgresql.conf with > share/postgresql.conf.sample, they will see change that they did not > make to postgresql.conf. > > Not sure you want to revert this changes, but I wanted to be sure people > understood this behavior. Yeah, I think the horse has left the barn on these changes, since they are in 9.0.1 at this point, but it's certainly something to keep in mind. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas wrote: > 2010/10/14 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> 2010/9/27 Devrim G?ND?Z <devrim@gunduz.org>: > >> > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> > Actually, I don't see any reason why not to backpatch it. > >> >> > >> >> I was wondering if it would cause package management headaches for > >> >> people who had already modified their postgresql.conf. > >> > > >> > We don't overwrite .conf files during upgrades. > >> > >> All right, have it your way. ?Done. ?:-) > >> > >> (Dang this is a lot easier than the old way.) > > > > Uh, I have always been reluctant to backpatch changes to > > postgresql.conf.sample because those changes are going to be installed > > in share/postgresql.conf.sample during a minor upgrade. ?After that, if > > someone diffs their data/postgresql.conf with > > share/postgresql.conf.sample, they will see change that they did not > > make to postgresql.conf. > > > > Not sure you want to revert this changes, but I wanted to be sure people > > understood this behavior. > > Yeah, I think the horse has left the barn on these changes, since they > are in 9.0.1 at this point, but it's certainly something to keep in > mind. Yes, I suspected that, but it is an effect I wanted to point out for the future. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +