Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

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.

and

> > 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.