Re: REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
Cc: Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files
Date: 2011-09-07 14:00:34
Message-ID: 5234.1315404034@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> writes:
> Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the history of messages regarding this patch, but is it supposed to kill the server if there is a syntax error in the config file?

The historical behavior is that a configuration file error detected
during postmaster startup should prevent the server from starting, but
an error detected during reload should only result in a LOG message and
the reload not occurring. I don't believe anyone will accept a patch
that causes the server to quit on a failed reload. There has however
been some debate about the exact extent of ignoring bad values during
reload --- currently the theory is "ignore the whole file if anything is
wrong", but there's some support for applying all non-bad values as long
as the overall file syntax is okay.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-09-07 14:02:25 Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-09-07 13:58:46 Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem