Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: > On Jun20, 2011, at 18:16 , Tom Lane wrote: >> This is already known to happen: there are cases where the postmaster >> and a backend can come to different conclusions about whether a setting >> is valid (eg, because it depends on database encoding). Whether that's >> a bug or not isn't completely clear, but if this patch is critically >> dependent on the situation never happening, I don't think we can accept >> it.
> Does that mean that some backends might currently choose to ignore an > updated config file wholesale on SIGUP (because some settings are invalid) > while others happily apply it? Meaning that they'll afterwards disagree > even on modified settings which *would* be valid for both backends? Yes. I complained about that before: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00330.php but we didn't come to any consensus about fixing it. This patch might be a good vehicle for revisiting the issue, though. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
