Re: Confusing message in log file

Hi All,

I changed the postgresql.conf file (of an 8.2.4 server), and issued
relaod using pg_reload_config(). Following are the messages I see in the log
files:

May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [19-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
PDTLOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [20-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
PDTLOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed after server start;
configuration file change ignored
May 14 21:39:03 sfphotodb001 postgres[22928]: [21-1] 2008-05-14 21:39:03
PDTLOG: archived transaction log file "0000000100000E23000000C8"

What's confusing about this is that the second message says
'configuration file change ignored', so I expect the changed (newly enabled)
archive_command to not take effect. But in fact, it does take effect.

The message probably should be rephrased to say that this setting
(shared_buffers) will not be changed.

Best regards,

--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I changed the postgresql.conf file (of an 8.2.4 server), and issued
> relaod using pg_reload_config(). Following are the messages I see in the log
> files:
>
> May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [19-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
> PDTLOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
> May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [20-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
> PDTLOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed after server start;
> configuration file change ignored
> May 14 21:39:03 sfphotodb001 postgres[22928]: [21-1] 2008-05-14 21:39:03
> PDTLOG: archived transaction log file "0000000100000E23000000C8"
>
>
> What's confusing about this is that the second message says
> 'configuration file change ignored', so I expect the changed (newly enabled)
> archive_command to not take effect. But in fact, it does take effect.
>
> The message probably should be rephrased to say that this setting
> (shared_buffers) will not be changed.

Actually, no one else has been confused by this wording before, and I
can't think of better wording that doesn't sound redundant.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [20-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
>> PDTLOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed after server start;
>> configuration file change ignored
>>
>> The message probably should be rephrased to say that this setting
>> (shared_buffers) will not be changed.

> Actually, no one else has been confused by this wording before, and I
> can't think of better wording that doesn't sound redundant.

How about "... after server start; change ignored" ?
Or "attempted change ignored" ?

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> >> May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [20-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
> >> PDTLOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed after server start;
> >> configuration file change ignored
> >>
> >> The message probably should be rephrased to say that this setting
> >> (shared_buffers) will not be changed.
>
> > Actually, no one else has been confused by this wording before, and I
> > can't think of better wording that doesn't sound redundant.
>
> How about "... after server start; change ignored" ?
> Or "attempted change ignored" ?

Yea, I like "change ignored" rather than mentioning the configuration
file.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian escribió:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:

> > May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [19-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
> > PDTLOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
> > May 14 21:38:40 sfphotodb001 postgres[29658]: [20-1] 2008-05-14 21:38:40
> > PDTLOG: parameter "shared_buffers" cannot be changed after server start;
> > configuration file change ignored

> > What's confusing about this is that the second message says
> > 'configuration file change ignored', so I expect the changed (newly enabled)
> > archive_command to not take effect. But in fact, it does take effect.
> >
> > The message probably should be rephrased to say that this setting
> > (shared_buffers) will not be changed.
>
> Actually, no one else has been confused by this wording before, and I
> can't think of better wording that doesn't sound redundant.

Perhaps this is because not enough people have seen it. I agree that
the message should specify that only this setting has been ignored.

In any case, this seems a case of stuffing too much in the primary
message. I think it should be something like

errmsg("parameter \"shared_buffer\" change in configuration file ignored"),
errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> In any case, this seems a case of stuffing too much in the primary
> message.

Yeah, good point.

> I think it should be something like
> errmsg("parameter \"shared_buffer\" change in configuration file ignored"),
> errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")

Seems a bit awkwardly phrased. I propose

errmsg("attempted change to parameter \"shared_buffer\" ignored"),
errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")

(or possibly "of" would read better than "to")

regards, tom lane

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > In any case, this seems a case of stuffing too much in the primary
> > message.
>
> Yeah, good point.
>
> > I think it should be something like
> > errmsg("parameter \"shared_buffer\" change in configuration file
> ignored"),
> > errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")
>
> Seems a bit awkwardly phrased. I propose
>
> errmsg("attempted change to parameter \"shared_buffer\" ignored"),
> errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")
>
> (or possibly "of" would read better than "to")
>
>
'of' sounds better than 'to'.

Best regards,
--
gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

Wording adjusted and applied with attached patch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > > In any case, this seems a case of stuffing too much in the primary
> > > message.
> >
> > Yeah, good point.
> >
> > > I think it should be something like
> > > errmsg("parameter \"shared_buffer\" change in configuration file
> > ignored"),
> > > errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")
> >
> > Seems a bit awkwardly phrased. I propose
> >
> > errmsg("attempted change to parameter \"shared_buffer\" ignored"),
> > errdetail("This parameter cannot be changed after server start.")
> >
> > (or possibly "of" would read better than "to")
> >
> >
> 'of' sounds better than 'to'.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com
> singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com
>
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +