"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> Certainly there isn't any reason to allow a reload of a file that is just
>> going to break things when the first connection happens. For that matter,
>> why would we ever not want to parse it at HUP time rather than connect time?
>
> Two or three reasons why not were already mentioned upthread, but for
> the stubborn, here's another one: are you volunteering to write the code
> that backs out the config-file reload after the checks have determined
> it was bad? Given the amount of pain we suffered trying to make GUC do
> something similar, any sane person would run screaming from the
> prospect.
Wouldn't that be *easier* if we do more parsing in the postmaster instead of
in the backends as Magnus suggested? Then it could build a new set of
structures and if there are any errors just throw them out before replacing
the old ones.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication
support!
