From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgresql.conf error checking strategy |
Date: | 2011-05-11 00:00:31 |
Message-ID: | 201105110000.p4B00Vk05638@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>> Yes, definitely. ?Perhaps summarize as "rethink how we handle partially
> >>> correct postgresql.conf files". ?Or maybe Robert sees it as "rethink
> >>> approach to making sure all backends share the same value of critical
> >>> settings"? ?Or maybe those are two different TODOs?
> >
> >> The second is what I had in mind. ?I'm thinking that at least for
> >> critical GUCs we need a different mechanism for making sure everything
> >> stays in sync, like having the postmaster write a precompiled file and
> >> convincing the backends to read it in some carefully synchronized
> >> fashion. ?However, it's not clear to me whether something along those
> >> lines (or some other lines) would solve the problem you were
> >> complaining about; therefore it's possible, as you say, that there are
> >> two separate action items here. ?Or maybe not: maybe someone can come
> >> up with an approach that swats both problems in one go.
> >
> > Well, the thing that was annoying me was that because a backend saw one
> > value in postgresql.conf as incorrect, it was refusing to apply any
> > changes at all from postgresql.conf. ?And worse, there was no log entry
> > to give any hint what was going on. ?This doesn't seem to me to have
> > much to do with the problem you're on about. ?I agree it's conceivable
> > that someone might think of a way to solve both issues at once, but
> > I think we'd better list them as separate TODOs.
>
> OK by me.
Two TODOs added:
Allow postgresql.conf settings to be accepted by backends even if some
settings are invalid for those backends
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00330.php
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-05/msg00375.php
Incomplete itemAllow all backends to receive postgresql.conf setting
changes at the same time
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00330.php
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-05/msg00375.php
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-11 00:19:49 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-05-10 23:54:45 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |