| From: | Amir Rohan <amir(dot)rohan(at)zoho(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 14:46:25 |
| Message-ID: | 561E6AC1.7030807@zoho.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
>
Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate 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".
I think you're simply saying you're -1 on the whole idea. ok.
Regards,
Amir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-10-14 14:55:13 | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-10-14 14:35:27 | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files |