On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> The patch chooses the last settings for every parameters and ignores the > >>> former settings. But I don't think that every parameters need to be processed > >>> this way. That is, we can change the patch so that only PGC_POSTMASTER > >>> parameters are processed that way. The invalid settings in the parameters > >>> except PGC_POSTMASTER can be checked by pg_ctl reload as they are now. > >>> Also this approach can reduce the number of comparison to choose the > >>> last setting, i.e., "n" in O(n^2) is the number of uncommented *PGC_POSTMASTER* > >>> parameters (not every parameters). Thought? > >> > >> I don't find that to be a particularly good idea. In the first place, > >> it introduces extra complication and a surprising difference in the > >> behavior of different GUCs. In the second place, I thought part of the > >> point of this patch was to suppress log messages complaining about > >> invalid values that then weren't actually used for anything. That issue > >> exists just as much for non-POSTMASTER variables. (IOW, "value cannot > >> be changed now" is not the only log message we're trying to suppress.) > > > > Yep, sounds reasonable. This makes me think that we can suppress > > such invalid message of the parameters which are actually not used > > at not only conf file reload but also *postmaster startup*. That's another > > story, though. Anyway, barring any objection, I will commit Amit's patch. > > Applied the slightly-modified version!
Thanks. There is a commitfest entry [1] for this patch, do you want some thing more to be addressed or shall we mark that as committed. [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1500 With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
