Bug #4389 skip-thread-priority settings
Submitted: 2 Jul 2004 23:32 Modified: 27 Jul 2004 0:48
Reporter: Yves Dieterich Email Updates:
Status: Won't fix Impact on me:
Category:MySQL Administrator Severity:S3 (Non-critical)
Version:1.0.5 OS:Microsoft Windows (XP SP1 FR)
Assigned to: Bugs System CPU Architecture:Any

[2 Jul 2004 23:32] Yves Dieterich
when you play with Deactivate Thread Priority checkbox, it will add lines
to your configuration file rather than updating the rigth line

How to repeat:
1- check  deactivate thread priority
2- apply changes
3- look at my.cnf 
4- uncheck deactivate thread priority
5- apply changes
6- look at my.cnf

do that a few time and ... new lines are added
[2 Jul 2004 23:59] Ulrich Bayer
Well observed but..
I am not sure if we should change the current behavior.
Imho there two types of users: a) people who look at their my.cnf files b) people who only use the mysql-administrator for configuring the server
The b) type people won't notice or care about many comments in their files.
The a) type poeple do care for their files. Of course these poeple don't like unnecessary comments but deleting them is not a real big deal. At the moment the a) type people might know (find out) that nothing is ever going to be deleted. If an option is turned off it is commented out but it is never deleted. Taking into account existing comments and uncommenting them if necessary harms this 'no deletion' philosophy a bit.

I still have to think about it.
[5 Jul 2004 11:01] Yves Dieterich
I understand your point of view. We do use Mysql for our customer, and from time to time our hotline need to get back the my.* file in order to check the configuration.
I might be very confusing for them : then look for a parameter and it has been commented. but they just miss that many line futher, the parameter is active, just because the customer play a few time with some of them and dozen of lines has been added and are commented. 
So indeed it migth be philosophy a bit, but its true that I find like clean configuration files.
Anyway, thanks for having a look.
[27 Jul 2004 0:48] Ulrich Bayer
We've decided to keep the current behavior at the moment. For a couple of reasons we will have to change/adapt the code in question soon and at this time we may think of improving the current mechanism again.