Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-09-28 16:36:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, they MUST be independently verifiable. The interactions between
>> the check_xxx functions in this patch are utterly unsafe. We've
>> learned that lesson before.
> I'm not sure those concerns apply quite the same way here - we can move
> the interdependent verification to the the point where they're used
> first rather than relying on guc.c infrastructure.
And, if they're bad, what happens? Recovery fails?
I don't think it's a great idea to lose out on whatever error checking
the existing GUC infrastructure can provide, just so as to use a GUC
design that's not very nice in the first place.
regards, tom lane
