On Jun16, 2011, at 20:14 , Alexey Klyukin wrote: > On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Jun16, 2011, at 18:46 , Alexey Klyukin wrote: >>> I just recalled a reason for counting the total number of errors. There is >>> a condition that >>> checks that the total number of errors is less than 100 and bails out if >>> it's more than that >>> (100 is arbitrary). The reason is to avoid bloating the logs w/ something >>> totally unrelated >>> to postgresql.conf. That was suggested by Tom Lane here: >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg01142.php >> >> Ah, right, I missed that. Guess it'll have to stay a counter, then. Still, I >> don't think it's >> worth the effort to make the count correct in case of included files, so I'd >> say just add >> a comment explaining that the count isn't totally accurate. > > Well, while thinking about this I decided to leave the counter for the > ParseConfigFp, but > drop it in ProcessConfigFile. The case we are protecting against is a single > file full of junk. > It's unlikely that this junk would contain include directives with valid file > paths, neither it's > likely to find a file with a correct syntax, but full of invalid directives.
Sounds good. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
