Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files

Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> On the downside, the current behaviour prevents problems if someone changes
> two interrelated GUCs, but makes a mistake at one of them. For example,
> someone might drastically lower bgwriter_delay but might botch the matching
> adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages.

That's a fair point, but the current behavior only saves you if the
botch is such that the new value is detectably invalid, as opposed to
say just a factor of 100 off from what you meant.  Not sure that that's
all that helpful.

			regards, tom lane