| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Tie stats options to autovacuum in |
| Date: | 2006-10-03 01:54:14 |
| Message-ID: | 17943.1159840454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> Hrm... how about if the options are incompatible on HUP we refuse to
>>> pick up any new settings and complain loudly?
>>
>> We don't read postgresql.conf as a test and then set values.
> IMHO we should... if something got botched in the config file I'd
> rather have it complain and not change anything instead of taking
> just some of the changes.
Apparently, neither of you have read the code nor experimented with this
behavior.
The core reason why GUC variables should not be interdependent (as Jim
proposed upthread) is exactly that it would break the ability of
ProcessConfigFile to validate the new settings before applying them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-03 04:00:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-10-03 01:43:01 | Re: Patch: Tie stats options to autovacuum in |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-03 04:00:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Bad bug in fopen() wrapper code |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-10-03 01:43:01 | Re: Patch: Tie stats options to autovacuum in |