From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Date: | 2011-07-18 22:53:31 |
Message-ID: | 4E24B96B.2050501@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, Florian,
>> On the downside, the current behaviour prevents problems if someone changes
>> two interrelated GUCs, but makes a mistake at one of them. For example,
>> someone might drastically lower bgwriter_delay but might botch the matching
>> adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages.
>
> That's a fair point, but the current behavior only saves you if the
> botch is such that the new value is detectably invalid, as opposed to
> say just a factor of 100 off from what you meant. Not sure that that's
> all that helpful.
Hmmm. As someone who often deploys pg.conf changes as part of a
production code rollout, I actually like the "atomic" nature of updating
postgresql.conf -- that is, all your changes succeed, or they all fail.
If we add this feature, I'd want there to be an option which allows
getting the current all-or-none behavior.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-18 23:05:12 | Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-18 22:50:27 | Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime |