From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Date: | 2011-11-01 13:45:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKR0S+18e8HWAuTtyFWzptkqPOv=5pADRe-RNb9eiTRyg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> If you change a parameter that only has effect during recovery then
>>>> must get an error if it is changed during normal running.
>>>
>>> I don't see why. If you're in normal running and someone changes a
>>> parameter that is irrelevant during normal running, that should be a
>>> no-op, not an error.
>>
>> How will it be made into a no-op, except by having a specific flag to
>> show that it is irrelevant during normal running?
>
> By default, changing a GUC just updates the value of some global
> variable inside every backend. But unless there's some code that
> makes use of that global variable for some purpose, it doesn't have
> any practical effect. Apart from whatever complexities may be imposed
> by our choice of implementation, I don't see how this would be any
> different from setting maintenance_work_mem in a particular session
> and then not running any CREATE INDEX or VACUUM commands in that
> session.
Why do we have this log message then, if it is OK to ignore changes
that have no effect?
LOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed without restarting the server
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-01 13:48:08 | Re: Avoiding shutdown checkpoint at failover |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-01 13:38:16 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |