Re: Incorrectly reporting config errors

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
>> My preference would be to not generate noise for interim states;
>> just report net changes.
>
> Yeah.  Is it worth explicitly detecting and dropping redundant assignments
> to the same variable?  A naive check for that would be O(N^2) in the
> number of entries in the conf file, but perhaps that's still cheap enough
> in practice.  This would mean for example that
>
>   shared_buffers = 'oops'
>   shared_buffers = '128MB'
>
> would not draw an error, which doesn't bother me but might bother
> somebody.

It doesn't bother me any.

>> And don't say that a file "contains
>> errors" when we mean "those options are ignored on reload; they
>> will only take effect on restart".
>
> I'm not happy about complicating that logic even more.  I think the
> reasonable choices here are to reword that message somehow, or just
> drop it completely.

I agree.  No strong preference which,

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company