Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:14:27PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:42:02 -0500
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>
>>> All this discussion seems to me to be going off into the clouds,
>>> where every objection is met with some still more elaborate scheme. I
>>> think we need to look at simple, incremental, and if possible
>>> backwards compatible changes.
>> The simplest solution I can think of is:
>>
>> Have a table pg_configuration (pg_settings?).
>>
>> Allow that table to be inserted into but not updated or deleted from.
>
> <snip>
>
> This pretty much kills the ability for people who *want* to edit things
> from the config file only, right? I don't think that's acceptable. At least
> not if it's at all avoidable, which I think it is.
I did mention in a reply that it could be optional :).
Joshua D. Drake