| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hacker mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files |
| Date: | 2015-10-14 13:24:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20151014132436.GF30738@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-10-14 16:17:55 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
> it does fail the "dependent options" test:
> $ postgres -C "archive_mode"
> on
> $ postgres -C wal_level
> minimal
Yea, because that's currently evaluated outside the config
mechanism. It'd imo would be good to change that independent of this
thread.
> 5) Because it checks syntax only, you don't get the benefits of having
> an official place for the community to easily contribute rules that
> warn you against config pitfalls, so that all users benefits.
> See my OP for real-world examples and links about this problem.
I don't think we as a community want to do that without review
mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add
separate processes for this.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amir Rohan | 2015-10-14 13:50:41 | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-10-14 13:24:12 | Re: Typo in replorigin_sesssion_origin (9.5+) |