Re: Semantics of pg_file_settings view - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> However there's a further tweak to the view that I'd like to think about
>>> making.  Once this is in and we make the originally-discussed change to
>>> suppress application of duplicated GUC entries, it would be possible to
>>> mark the ignored entries in the view, which would save people the effort
>>> of figuring out manually which ones were ignored.  The question is exactly
>>> how to mark the ignored entries.  A simple tweak would be to put something
>>> in the "error" column, say "ignored because of later duplicate entry".
>>> However, this would break the property that an entry in the error column
>>> means there's something you'd better fix, which I think would be a useful
>>> rule for nagios-like monitoring tools.
>>>
>>> Another issue with the API as it stands here is that you can't easily
>>> distinguish errors that caused the entire config file to be ignored from
>>> those that only prevented application of one setting.
>>>
>>> The best idea I have at the moment is to also add a boolean "applied"
>>> column which is true if the entry was successfully applied.  Errors that
>>> result in the whole file being ignored would mean that *all* the entries
>>> show applied = false.  Otherwise, applied = false with nothing in the
>>> error column would imply that the entry was ignored due to a later
>>> duplicate.  There are multiple other ways it could be done of course;
>>> anyone want to lobby for some other design?
>
>> I think that we can find applied value by arranging
>> pg_file_settings.seqno ascending order.
>> The value which has highest seqno is the currently applied value, and
>> it's default value if pg_file_settings does not have that entry.
>
> Yeah, I realize that it's *possible* to get this information out of the
> view as it stands.  But it's not especially *convenient*.  And since this
> seems like the main if not only use-case for the view (at least prior to
> the addition of error information), I don't see why we insist on making it
> difficult for users to identify ignored entries.

Yep, I think that it will have enough information by adding additional
information of WIP patch.

>> (errcode(ERRCODE_CANT_CHANGE_RUNTIME_PARAM),
>>                                          errmsg("parameter \"%s\"
>> cannot be changed without restarting the server",
>> +                       item->errmsg = pstrdup("parameter cannot be
>> changed without restarting the server");
>>                         error = true;
>>                         continue;
>
>> Also, the above hunk is wrong, because the item variable is wobbly and
>> the correspond line is not exists here.
>
> er ... what?
>

Sorry for confusing you.
Anyway I meant that I got SEGV after applied WIP patch, and the cause
is the above changes.
The case is following.
1. Add "port = 6543" to postgresql.conf and restart server.
2. Remove that added line from postgresql.conf
3. Reload.
Got SEGV.

Regards,

--
Sawada Masahiko