| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexey Kluykin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Date: | 2011-07-16 19:23:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20142.1310844226@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 the downside, the current behaviour prevents problems if someone changes
> two interrelated GUCs, but makes a mistake at one of them. For example,
> someone might drastically lower bgwriter_delay but might botch the matching
> adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages.
That's a fair point, but the current behavior only saves you if the
botch is such that the new value is detectably invalid, as opposed to
say just a factor of 100 off from what you meant. Not sure that that's
all that helpful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-16 20:41:07 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-16 19:09:21 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |