Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code
Date: 2008-09-08 12:39:29
Message-ID: 12825.1220877569@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Peter's objection is reasonable, as far as most people have replied.
> Marko's proposal is also reasonable to most people, since they do not
> wish fat fingers to cause any amount of downtime. ISTM that if you've
> done this, you appreciate the feature, if not it seems less important.

I really think that the claim that this will "save downtime" is a
ridiculous argument. On that basis we should, for example, be looking
for a nearest match for any misspelled variable name. The fact of the
matter is that a configuration validator is a far better answer to any
such worries than trying to accept bad/questionable input.

> So my recommendation to everybody is
> * we allow case insensitive matches of units in postgresql.conf
> * Marko should change patch to put WARNINGs in place so people know they
> got it wrong
> * we make sure the case is always shown correctly in all other aspects
> of Postgres server and docs (no relaxation at all there)
> * in the longer term, we look for the solution to be a config checker

My vote is to reject the patch and work on a config checker.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-08 12:47:46 Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-08 12:30:59 Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02