Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: >> My preference would be to not generate noise for interim states; >> just report net changes. > > Yeah. Is it worth explicitly detecting and dropping redundant assignments > to the same variable? A naive check for that would be O(N^2) in the > number of entries in the conf file, but perhaps that's still cheap enough > in practice. This would mean for example that > > shared_buffers = 'oops' > shared_buffers = '128MB' > > would not draw an error, which doesn't bother me but might bother > somebody.
It doesn't bother me any. >> And don't say that a file "contains >> errors" when we mean "those options are ignored on reload; they >> will only take effect on restart". > > I'm not happy about complicating that logic even more. I think the > reasonable choices here are to reword that message somehow, or just > drop it completely. I agree. No strong preference which, -- Kevin Grittner EDB: 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
