| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Date: | 2011-06-20 17:22:06 |
| Message-ID: | 13515.1308590526@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> On Jun20, 2011, at 18:16 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is already known to happen: there are cases where the postmaster
>> and a backend can come to different conclusions about whether a setting
>> is valid (eg, because it depends on database encoding). Whether that's
>> a bug or not isn't completely clear, but if this patch is critically
>> dependent on the situation never happening, I don't think we can accept
>> it.
> Does that mean that some backends might currently choose to ignore an
> updated config file wholesale on SIGUP (because some settings are invalid)
> while others happily apply it? Meaning that they'll afterwards disagree
> even on modified settings which *would* be valid for both backends?
Yes. I complained about that before:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00330.php
but we didn't come to any consensus about fixing it. This patch might
be a good vehicle for revisiting the issue, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-20 17:22:24 | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-20 17:21:59 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |