Hello Willy,

On 6 April 2018 at 14:14, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> The confusion often arises because haproxy accepts a resolver
>> configuration where no resolvers are configured. Maybe we should
>> reject the configuration when a resolver is referred to in the servers
>> lines, but no actual resolvers are configured (AND resolv.conf parsing
>> is not enabled in future).
> Well, sometimes when you're debugging a configuration, it's nice to be
> able to disable some elements. Same for those manipulating/building
> configs by assembling elements and iteratively pass them through
> "haproxy -c". That's exactly the reason why we relaxed a few checks in
> the past, like accepting a frontend with no bind line or accepting a
> backend with a "cookie" directive with no cookie on server lines. In
> fact we could simply emit a warning when a resolvers section has no
> resolver nor resolv.conf enabled, but at least accept to start.

Understood; however in this specific case I would argue one would
remove the "resolver" directive from the server-line(s), instead of
dropping the nameservers from the global nameserver declaration.

Maybe a config warning would be a compromise for this case?



Reply via email to