Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Date: 2011-07-18 22:53:31
Message-ID: 4E24B96B.2050501@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom, Florian,

>> 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.

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 add this feature, I'd want there to be an option which allows
getting the current all-or-none behavior.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-07-18 23:05:12 Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-07-18 22:50:27 Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime