| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| 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 15:56:37 |
| Message-ID: | 23645.1311090997@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On sn, 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.
Then you don't have any meaningful reporting of whether you have entered
valid values --- particularly not with the policy that only the
postmaster makes logfile entries about bad values. It'd work but I
don't think it's tremendously user-friendly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-19 15:58:54 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-19 15:37:16 | Re: storing TZ along timestamps |