Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-07-18T22:53:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom, Florian, >> 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. Hmmm. As someone who often deploys pg.conf changes as part of a production code rollout, I actually like the "atomic" nature of updating postgresql.conf -- that is, all your changes succeed, or they all fail. If we add this feature, I'd want there to be an option which allows getting the current all-or-none behavior. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com