Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Yes, definitely. ?Perhaps summarize as "rethink how we handle partially
> >>> correct postgresql.conf files". ?Or maybe Robert sees it as "reth
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yes, definitely. Perhaps summarize as "rethink how we handle partially
>>> correct postgresql.conf files". Or maybe Robert sees it as "rethink
>>> approach to making su
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes, definitely. Perhaps summarize as "rethink how we handle partially
>> correct postgresql.conf files". Or maybe Robert sees it as "rethink
>> approach to making sure all backends share the same value of critical
>> sett
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So I'm thinking we should adopt a strategy that's less likely to result
in divergent behavior among different backends. ?The idea I have in
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So I'm thinking we should adopt a strategy that's less likely to result
>>> in divergent behavior among different backends. ?The idea I have in mind
>>> is to have the first "validation" pass only ch
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I just spent a rather confused half hour while testing my GUC
> > assign-hook patch, and when I finally figured out what was happening,
> > it made me wonder whether we should redesign the behavior a little bit.
> >
> > The c
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just spent a rather confused half hour while testing my GUC
> assign-hook patch, and when I finally figured out what was happening,
> it made me wonder whether we should redesign the behavior a little bit.
>
> The current behavior of ProcessConfi
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I'm thinking we should adopt a strategy that's less likely to result
> in divergent behavior among different backends. The idea I have in mind
> is to have the first "validation" pass only check that each name is a
> legal GUC variable name, a
I just spent a rather confused half hour while testing my GUC
assign-hook patch, and when I finally figured out what was happening,
it made me wonder whether we should redesign the behavior a little bit.
The current behavior of ProcessConfigFile is that it runs through all
the "name = value" pairs
