Alexey Klyukin writes:
> Attached is v5. It should fix both problems you've experienced with v4.
I've applied this patch after some additional hacking.
> One problem I'm not sure how to address is the fact that we require 2
> calls of set_config_option for each option, one to verify the new
> va
On 09/10/2011 11:39 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya.
...
Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also
seems to have killed the serv
On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-09-07 at 10:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There has however
>> been some debate about the exact extent of ignoring bad values during
>> reload --- currently the theory is "ignore the whole file if anything is
>> wrong", but ther
On ons, 2011-09-07 at 10:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There has however
> been some debate about the exact extent of ignoring bad values during
> reload --- currently the theory is "ignore the whole file if anything is
> wrong", but there's some support for applying all non-bad values as long
> as t
On 09/10/2011 11:39 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya.
...
Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also
seems to have killed the
Hi Andy,
On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote:
> Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for
> ya.
>
...
> Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also
> seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the h
Hello,
On Sep 7, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andy Colson writes:
>> Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It
>> also seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the history
>> of messages regarding this patch, but is it supposed to kill t
Andy Colson writes:
> Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also
> seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the history of
> messages regarding this patch, but is it supposed to kill the server if there
> is a syntax error in the config file
Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya.
I have a default config from initdb, there is a new setting at the end but its
commented out.
root@storm: /db/pg92
# /etc/rc.d/postgresql start
Starting PostgreSQL:
root@storm: /db/pg92
# more serverlog
LOG: datab
