Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yes, definitely. �Perhaps summarize as "rethink how we handle partially
>> correct postgresql.conf files". �Or maybe Robert sees it as "rethink
>> approach to making sure all backends share the same value of critical
>> settings"? �Or maybe those are two different TODOs?
> The second is what I had in mind. I'm thinking that at least for
> critical GUCs we need a different mechanism for making sure everything
> stays in sync, like having the postmaster write a precompiled file and
> convincing the backends to read it in some carefully synchronized
> fashion. However, it's not clear to me whether something along those
> lines (or some other lines) would solve the problem you were
> complaining about; therefore it's possible, as you say, that there are
> two separate action items here. Or maybe not: maybe someone can come
> up with an approach that swats both problems in one go.
Well, the thing that was annoying me was that because a backend saw one
value in postgresql.conf as incorrect, it was refusing to apply any
changes at all from postgresql.conf. And worse, there was no log entry
to give any hint what was going on. This doesn't seem to me to have
much to do with the problem you're on about. I agree it's conceivable
that someone might think of a way to solve both issues at once, but
I think we'd better list them as separate TODOs.
regards, tom lane
