Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-10-02 Thread Tom Lane
Alexey Klyukin al...@commandprompt.com writes: Attached is v5. It should fix both problems you've experienced with v4. I've applied this patch after some additional hacking. One problem I'm not sure how to address is the fact that we require 2 calls of set_config_option for each option, one

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-29 Thread Alexander
On 09/10/2011 11:39 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote: Hi Andy, On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote: Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya. ... Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2011-09-07 at 10:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: There has however been some debate about the exact extent of ignoring bad values during reload --- currently the theory is ignore the whole file if anything is wrong, but there's some support for applying all non-bad values as long as the

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-12 Thread Alexey Klyukin
On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On ons, 2011-09-07 at 10:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: There has however been some debate about the exact extent of ignoring bad values during reload --- currently the theory is ignore the whole file if anything is wrong, but there's some

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-10 Thread Alexey Klyukin
Hi Andy, On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote: Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya. ... Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-10 Thread Andy Colson
On 09/10/2011 11:39 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote: Hi Andy, On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Andy Colson wrote: Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya. ... Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-09 Thread Alexey Klyukin
Hello, On Sep 7, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net writes: Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the history of messages regarding this patch, but is it

Re: [HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-07 Thread Tom Lane
Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net writes: Where did the other warnings go? Its right though, line 570 is bad. It also seems to have killed the server. I have not gotten through the history of messages regarding this patch, but is it supposed to kill the server if there is a syntax error

[HACKERS] REVIEW proposal: a validator for configuration files

2011-09-06 Thread Andy Colson
Hi Alexey, I was taking a quick look at this patch, and have a question for ya. I have a default config from initdb, there is a new setting at the end but its commented out. root@storm: /db/pg92 # /etc/rc.d/postgresql start Starting PostgreSQL: root@storm: /db/pg92 # more serverlog LOG: