On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>>> The patch chooses the last settings for every parameters and ignores the
>>> former settings. But I don't think that every parameters need to be processed
>>> this way. That is, we can change the patch so that only PGC_POSTMASTER
>>> parameters are processed that way. The invalid settings in the parameters
>>> except PGC_POSTMASTER can be checked by pg_ctl reload as they are now.
>>> Also this approach can reduce the number of comparison to choose the
>>> last setting, i.e., "n" in O(n^2) is the number of uncommented *PGC_POSTMASTER*
>>> parameters (not every parameters). Thought?
>>
>> I don't find that to be a particularly good idea. In the first place,
>> it introduces extra complication and a surprising difference in the
>> behavior of different GUCs. In the second place, I thought part of the
>> point of this patch was to suppress log messages complaining about
>> invalid values that then weren't actually used for anything. That issue
>> exists just as much for non-POSTMASTER variables. (IOW, "value cannot
>> be changed now" is not the only log message we're trying to suppress.)
>
> Yep, sounds reasonable. This makes me think that we can suppress
> such invalid message of the parameters which are actually not used
> at not only conf file reload but also *postmaster startup*. That's another
> story, though. Anyway, barring any objection, I will commit Amit's patch.
Applied the slightly-modified version!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
