Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:06:11 -0400
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
In-reply-to: <17932.1212415926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Message-id: <200806061506.12093.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0806020452220.26912@westnet.com>
	<17932.1212415926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9

On Monday 02 June 2008 10:12:06 Tom Lane wrote:
> I have no objection to providing alternative ways to edit the
> configuration data, but the primary source of the settings is
> going to continue to be an editable text file.  Any proposals for
> alternatives-to-a-text-editor have to work within that reality.
>

I think there is some disagreement that using text files needs to be 
the "primary" way to edit configurations.  Some people are of the opinion 
that we should focus on text files as a secondary method, generally to be 
used only when a more sql/gui oriented way wont work (ie. your shared buffer 
restart scenario).  I think most of the user base would like to approach 
administration from that point-of-view, and as of yet I haven't seen a 
technical reason why that world view is wrong, only philosphical ones. 

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL