Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of dom may 22 23:09:47 -0400 2011: > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> But also, 99.999% of the time > >>> it would be completely wasted effort because the DBA wouldn't remove the > >>> postgresql.conf setting at all, ever. > > > >> Well, by that argument, we ought not to worry about masterminding what > >> happens if the DBA does do such a thing -- just run the whole process > >> and damn the torpedoes. If it causes a brief database stall, at least > >> they'll get the correct behavior. > > > > Yeah, maybe. But I don't especially want to document "If you remove a > > pre-existing setting of TimeZone from postgresql.conf, expect your > > database to lock up hard for multiple seconds" ... and I think we > > couldn't responsibly avoid mentioning it. At the moment that disclaimer > > reads more like "If you remove a pre-existing setting of TimeZone from > > postgresql.conf, the database will fall back to a default that might not > > be what you were expecting". Is A really better than B? > > Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I lean toward yes. Anyone else have > an opinion?
Yes, I think the lock-up is better than weird behavior. Maybe we should add a short note in a postgresql.conf comment to this effect, so that it doesn't surprise anyone that deletes or comments out the line. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
