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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files
Date
Msg-id 563F60CA.6050304@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/14/15 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Amir Rohan wrote:
>>
>>> it does fail the "dependent options" test:
>>> $ postgres -C "archive_mode"
>>> on
>>> $ postgres -C wal_level
>>> minimal
>>>
>>> no errors, great, let's try it:
>>> $ pg_ctl restart
>>>
>>> FATAL:  WAL archival cannot be enabled when wal_level is "minimal"
>>
>> This complaint could be fixed we had a --check-config that runs the
>> check hook for every variable, I think.

I think that would be widely useful and fairly uncontroversial.

> The problem is that this, and some others, invariant is checked outside the GUC framework. Which we should probably
change,which IIRC will require some new infrastructure.
 

In the extreme, this problem is not solvable (halting problem).  If we
had a dry-run checking functionality, there would probably be more
incentive to normalize many of the common dependency cases into a
declarative system.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pam auth - add rhost item
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API