On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan <amir.ro...@zoho.com> wrote: > That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing > "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. > I understand your point and I was only reiterating what in particular > makes the conf checker distinctly useful IMO, and what it could > provide that pg_settings doesn't. > > I've looked at parts of the pg_settings implementation and indeed some > of that code (and legwork) could be reused so the mundane parts > of writing this will be less hassle. I might have missed that if Tom and > you hadn't pointed that out. > > So, Fair, and thanks.
No worries. I'm not upset with you, and I see where you're coming from. But I since I'm trying to be helpful I thought I would check whether it's working. Sounds like yes, which is nice. It would be spiffy if we could use the same config-file parser from outside postgres itself, but it seems hard. I assume the core lexer and parser could be adapted to work from libcommon with some non-enormous amount of effort, but check-functions are can and do assume that they are running in a backend environment; one would lose a lot of sanity-checking if those couldn't be executed, and checking GUCs created by loadable modules seems impossible. Still, even a partial move toward making this code accessible in frontend code would be welcome from where I sit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
