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

From Amir Rohan
Subject Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Date
Msg-id 561E6AC1.7030807@zoho.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense.
> 

Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate 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".

I think you're simply saying you're -1 on the whole idea. ok.

Regards,
Amir







pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files