Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
От | Amir Rohan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 561C49D5.7060502@zoho.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic
validation of postgresql configuration files
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/13/2015 02:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Amir Rohan <amir.rohan@zoho.com> wrote: >> It does catch bad syntax, but in most cases all you get is >> "The setting could not be applied". that's not great for enums >> or a float instead of an int. I guess a future version will fix that >> (or not). > > I expect we would consider patches to improve the error messages if > you (or someone else) wanted to propose such. But you don't have to > want to do that. > >> You need a running server to run a check. You need to monkey >> with said server's configuration in place to run a check. You must be on >> 9.5+. The checking mechanism isn't extensible. Certainly not as easily >> as dropping a new rule file somewhere. It doesn't check (AFAICT) for bad >> combinations of values, for example it will tell you that you can't >> change `wal_archive` without restart (without showing source location >> btw, bug?), but not that you better set `wal_level` *before* you >> restart. It doesn't do any semantic checks. It won't warn you >> about things that are not actually an error, just a bad idea. > > So, I'm not saying that a config checker has no value. In fact, I > already said the opposite. You seem to be jumping all over me here > when all I was trying to do is explain what I think Tom was getting > at. I *do* think that pg_file_settings is a helpful feature that is > certainly related to what you are trying to do, but I don't think that > it means that a config checker is useless. Fair? > That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. I understand your point and I was only reiterating what in particular makes the conf checker distinctly useful IMO, and what it could provide that pg_settings doesn't. I've looked at parts of the pg_settings implementation and indeed some of that code (and legwork) could be reused so the mundane parts of writing this will be less hassle. I might have missed that if Tom and you hadn't pointed that out. So, Fair, and thanks. Amir
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: