| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexey Kluykin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Date: | 2011-07-16 20:55:00 |
| Message-ID: | 23229.1310849700@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Btw, if we touch that, I think we should think about providing some way
> to detect when a backend fails to apply a value.
Hm, maybe, but keep in mind that there are valid reasons for a backend
to ignore a postgresql.conf setting --- in particular, it might have a
local override from some flavor of SET command. So I don't think we'd
want the flag to have the semantics of "this backend is actually *using*
the value"; and yet, if that's not what it means, people could still be
confused. There might be some implementation gotchas as well. I'm not
sure offhand how thoroughly the GUC code checks a value that is being
overridden.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-16 22:14:28 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-16 20:41:07 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |