Re: Allow commenting of variables in postgresql.conf to - try 4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allow commenting of variables in postgresql.conf to - try 4
Date: 2006-07-24 14:24:38
Message-ID: 10639.1153751078@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> writes:
> I did not check the changes you have done to set_config_option and the like
> but tested the commenting / uncommenting / changing of guc variables and the
> behavior and log output. The general idea (at least my idea) is that
> whenever a SIGHUP is received and there is some difference between the
> config file and the active value that the server is using, a notice message
> is written to the log.

Notice message? Where did that come from? The behavior I thought
people were after was just that variables previously defined by the file
would revert to reset values if not any longer defined by the file.

From a reviewer's point of view, it'd be nice if the patch did not
contain so many useless changes of whitespace.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-07-24 14:26:28 Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-24 14:13:00 Re: LDAP patch & feature freeze

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-07-24 14:26:28 Re: pgstattuple extension for indexes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-24 14:13:00 Re: LDAP patch & feature freeze