Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexey Kluykin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Date: 2011-07-19 05:24:15
Message-ID: 1311053055.30180.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On sön, 2011-07-17 at 00:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, we *do* have a C API for that, of a sort. The problem is, what
> do you do in processes that have not loaded the relevant extension?

Those processes that have the extension loaded check the parameter
settings in their namespace, those that don't ignore them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-07-19 06:06:50 Re: about EDITOR_LINENUMBER_SWITCH
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-07-19 05:08:46 Re: pg_upgrade and log file output on Windows