On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from
>>> recovery.conf.
>>> My fear would be that an user encounters an error like this. Il will be
>>> difficult to link to the recovery.conf.
>>
>> Thinking a bit wider than that, we may want to know such context for
>> normal GUC parameters as well, and that's not the case now. Perhaps
>> there is actually a reason why that's not done for GUCs, but it seems
>> that it would be useful there as well. That would give another reason
>> to move all that under the GUC umbrella.
>
> Maybe so, but that's been tried multiple times without success. If
> you think an error context is useful here, and I bet it is, I'd say
> just add it and be done with it.
This has finished by being less ugly than I thought, so I implemented
it as attached. Patch 0001 introduces recovery_target_lsn, and patch
0002 sets up an error context callback generating things like that on
failure:
FATAL: invalid input syntax for type pg_lsn: "popo"
CONTEXT: line 11 of configuration file "recovery.conf", parameter
"recovery_target_lsn"
--
Michael