|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense.
> Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"?
Not going through the CF and normal release process.
> either it's in core (and follows its processes) or it isn't. But you
> can't say you don't want it in core but that you also don't
> want it to follow a "separate process".
Oh for crying out loud. You write:
> 4) You can't easily extend the checks performed, without forking
> postgres or going through the (lengthy, rigorous) cf process.
> > 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.
I don't see how those two statements don't conflict.
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2015-10-14 15:24:27||OS X El Capitan and DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH|
|Previous Message||Amir Rohan||2015-10-14 14:46:25||Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files|