"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Certainly there isn't any reason to allow a reload of a file that is just >> going to break things when the first connection happens. For that matter, >> why would we ever not want to parse it at HUP time rather than connect time? > > Two or three reasons why not were already mentioned upthread, but for > the stubborn, here's another one: are you volunteering to write the code > that backs out the config-file reload after the checks have determined > it was bad? Given the amount of pain we suffered trying to make GUC do > something similar, any sane person would run screaming from the > prospect.
Wouldn't that be *easier* if we do more parsing in the postmaster instead of in the backends as Magnus suggested? Then it could build a new set of structures and if there are any errors just throw them out before replacing the old ones. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
