Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Date
Msg-id 20151014103013.GN10323@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files  (Amir Rohan <amir.rohan@zoho.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files  (Amir Rohan <amir.rohan@zoho.com>)
Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
> Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and
> why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming.

As far as I have skimmed the thread it's only talking about shortcoming
in case it requires a running server. Which -C doesn't.

I don't think there's any fundamental difference between some external
binary parsing & validating the config file and the postgres binary
doing it. There *is* the question of the utility being able to to
process options from multiple major releases, but I don't think that's a
particularly worthwhile goal here.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining open items
Next
From: Victor Wagner
Date:
Subject: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.