Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Date: 2011-07-19 15:58:54
Message-ID: 23698.1311091134@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm. As someone who often deploys pg.conf changes as part of a
> production code rollout, I actually like the "atomic" nature of updating
> postgresql.conf -- that is, all your changes succeed, or they all fail.

If we actually *had* that, I'd agree with you. The problem is that it
appears that we have such a behavior, but it fails to work that way in
corner cases. My proposal is aimed at making the corner cases less
corner-y, by adopting a uniform rule that each backend adopts all the
changes it can.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-07-19 16:06:49 Re: Single pass vacuum - take 1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-07-19 15:56:37 Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files