On 23/08/16 09:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nay...@dalibo.com> wrote:
As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from
recovery.conf.
My fear would be that an user encounters an error like this. Il will be
difficult to link to the recovery.conf.
Thinking a bit wider than that, we may want to know such context for
normal GUC parameters as well, and that's not the case now. Perhaps
there is actually a reason why that's not done for GUCs, but it seems
that it would be useful there as well. That would give another reason
to move all that under the GUC umbrella.
Maybe so, but that's been tried multiple times without success. If
you think an error context is useful here, and I bet it is, I'd say
just add it and be done with it.
This has finished by being less ugly than I thought, so I implemented
it as attached. Patch 0001 introduces recovery_target_lsn, and patch
0002 sets up an error context callback generating things like that on
failure:
FATAL: invalid input syntax for type pg_lsn: "popo"
CONTEXT: line 11 of configuration file "recovery.conf", parameter
"recovery_target_lsn"
Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that.
I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
