From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incorrectly reporting config errors |
Date: | 2014-01-22 17:10:30 |
Message-ID: | 13048.1390410630@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> My preference would be to not generate noise for interim states;
> just report net changes.
Yeah. Is it worth explicitly detecting and dropping redundant assignments
to the same variable? A naive check for that would be O(N^2) in the
number of entries in the conf file, but perhaps that's still cheap enough
in practice. This would mean for example that
shared_buffers = 'oops'
shared_buffers = '128MB'
would not draw an error, which doesn't bother me but might bother
somebody.
> And don't say that a file "contains
> errors" when we mean "those options are ignored on reload; they
> will only take effect on restart".
I'm not happy about complicating that logic even more. I think the
reasonable choices here are to reword that message somehow, or just
drop it completely.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-22 17:11:55 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-22 17:08:28 | Re: WAL replay should fdatasync() segments? |