| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Continue work on changes to recovery.conf API |
| Date: | 2018-09-28 20:45:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1902.1538167549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-09-28 16:36:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, they MUST be independently verifiable. The interactions between
>> the check_xxx functions in this patch are utterly unsafe. We've
>> learned that lesson before.
> I'm not sure those concerns apply quite the same way here - we can move
> the interdependent verification to the the point where they're used
> first rather than relying on guc.c infrastructure.
And, if they're bad, what happens? Recovery fails?
I don't think it's a great idea to lose out on whatever error checking
the existing GUC infrastructure can provide, just so as to use a GUC
design that's not very nice in the first place.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-28 20:58:36 | Re: ALTER TABLE on system catalogs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-28 20:43:10 | Re: SQL/JSON: documentation |