Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hacker mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Date: 2015-10-14 14:35:27
Message-ID: 20151014143527.GG30738@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
> > I don't think we as a community want to do that without review
> > mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add
> > separate processes for this.
> >
>
> That's what "contribute" means in my book.

Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amir Rohan 2015-10-14 14:46:25 Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Previous Message Amir Rohan 2015-10-14 13:50:41 Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files