Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com> wrote:
> That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing
> "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here.
> I understand your point and I was only reiterating what in particular
> makes the conf checker distinctly useful IMO, and what it could
> provide that pg_settings doesn't.
>
> I've looked at parts of the pg_settings implementation and indeed some
> of that code (and legwork) could be reused so the mundane parts
> of writing this will be less hassle. I might have missed that if Tom and
> you hadn't pointed that out.
>
> So, Fair, and thanks.

No worries. I'm not upset with you, and I see where you're coming
from. But I since I'm trying to be helpful I thought I would check
whether it's working. Sounds like yes, which is nice.

It would be spiffy if we could use the same config-file parser from
outside postgres itself, but it seems hard. I assume the core lexer
and parser could be adapted to work from libcommon with some
non-enormous amount of effort, but check-functions are can and do
assume that they are running in a backend environment; one would lose
a lot of sanity-checking if those couldn't be executed, and checking
GUCs created by loadable modules seems impossible. Still, even a
partial move toward making this code accessible in frontend code would
be welcome from where I sit.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company