Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/15 1:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >> >>> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >>> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >>> on >>> $ postgres -C wal_level >>> minimal >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and >> why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. > > As far as I have

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense. > Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"? Not going through the CF and normal release process. > either it's

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 05:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 17:46:25 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Then your argument about the CF process doesn't seem to make sense. > >> Why? I ask again, what do you mean by "separate process"? > > Not going

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >>> I don't think we as a community want to do that without review >>> mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add >>> separate processes for this. >>> >> >> That's what "contribute"

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 16:50:41 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > > I don't think we as a community want to do that without review > > mechanisms in place, and I personally don't think we want to add > > separate processes for this. > > > > That's what "contribute" means in my book. Then your argument about

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > it does fail the "dependent options" test: > $ postgres -C "archive_mode" > on > $ postgres -C wal_level > minimal > > no errors, great, let's try it: > $ pg_ctl restart > > FATAL: WAL archival cannot be enabled when wal_level is "minimal" This complaint could be fixed we

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On October 14, 2015 7:45:53 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Amir Rohan wrote: > >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal >> >> no errors, great, let's try it: >> $ pg_ctl restart >>

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

IOn 10/14/2015 08:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal >> >> no errors, great, let's try it: >> $ pg_ctl restart >> >> FATAL: WAL archival cannot be enabled

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and > why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. As far as I have skimmed the thread it's only talking about shortcoming in case it requires a running

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:52:21AM +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 01:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> Amir Rohan wrote: > >>> > I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > are

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 07:41 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:52:21AM +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> >> I've considered "vendoring", but it seems like enough code surgery >> be involved to make this very dubious "reuse". The language is simple >> enough that writing a parser from scratch

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 01:54:46 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> Andres, please see upthread for quite a bit on what it doesn't do, and >> why having it in the server is both an advantages and a shortcoming. > > As far as I have skimmed the thread it's only

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 2015-10-14 16:17:55 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: > it does fail the "dependent options" test: > $ postgres -C "archive_mode" > on > $ postgres -C wal_level > minimal Yea, because that's currently evaluated outside the config mechanism. It'd imo would be good to change that independent of this

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 04:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-14 16:17:55 +0300, Amir Rohan wrote: >> it does fail the "dependent options" test: >> $ postgres -C "archive_mode" >> on >> $ postgres -C wal_level >> minimal > > Yea, because that's currently evaluated outside the config > mechanism. It'd

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing > "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. > I understand your point and I was only reiterating what in particular > makes the conf

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/13/2015 09:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> That wasn't my intention. Perhaps I'm overreacting to a long-standing >> "Tom Lane's bucket of cold water" tradition. I'm new here. >> I understand your point and I was only

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amir Rohan wrote: > > > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other > >> hand involving the pg build in installation what's

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan wrote: > I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors > are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other > hand involving the pg build in installation what's intended as a > lightweight, independent tool would hurt. > Because it's dubious

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other >> hand involving the pg build in installation what's intended as a >> lightweight,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/14/2015 12:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Amir Rohan wrote: >>> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On October 13, 2015 11:14:19 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >Amir Rohan wrote: > >> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >> are introduces by having a different implementation, but on the other >> hand involving the pg build in

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/14/2015 01:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On October 13, 2015 11:14:19 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Amir Rohan wrote: >> >>> I've been considering that. Reusing the parser would ensure no errors >>> are introduces by having a different implementation,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/13/2015 02:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> It does catch bad syntax, but in most cases all you get is >> "The setting could not be applied". that's not great for enums >> or a float instead of an int. I guess a future

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Amir Rohan wrote: > It does catch bad syntax, but in most cases all you get is > "The setting could not be applied". that's not great for enums > or a float instead of an int. I guess a future version will fix that > (or not). I expect we

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/09/2015 09:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Amir Rohan wrote: >> On 10/08/2015 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Amir Rohan writes: Comments? >>> >>> ISTM that all of the "functional" parts of this are superseded by >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Amir Rohan wrote: > In addition to a simple syntax check, there's a bunch of "config wisdom" > tidbits I've encountering, which is scattered through talks, commit > messages, and mailing list discussion, and documentation notes > (chapter 17,

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Amir Rohan wrote: > On 10/08/2015 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Amir Rohan writes: >>> Comments? >> >> ISTM that all of the "functional" parts of this are superseded by >> pg_file_settings; > > To use the new

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

Amir Rohan writes: > Comments? ISTM that all of the "functional" parts of this are superseded by pg_file_settings; or at least, if they aren't, you need to provide a rationale that doesn't consist only of pointing to pre-9.5 discussions. The "advice" parts of it maybe are

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: pg_confcheck - syntactic & semantic validation of postgresql configuration files

On 10/08/2015 02:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amir Rohan writes: >> Comments? > > ISTM that all of the "functional" parts of this are superseded by > pg_file_settings; To use the new pg_file_settings view you need: 1( 9.5+ 2( a running server The feature is describes as