On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Amir Rohan <amir.ro...@zoho.com> 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 would consider patches to improve the error messages if you (or someone else) wanted to propose such. But you don't have to want to do that. > You need a running server to run a check. You need to monkey > with said server's configuration in place to run a check. You must be on > 9.5+. The checking mechanism isn't extensible. Certainly not as easily > as dropping a new rule file somewhere. It doesn't check (AFAICT) for bad > combinations of values, for example it will tell you that you can't > change `wal_archive` without restart (without showing source location > btw, bug?), but not that you better set `wal_level` *before* you > restart. It doesn't do any semantic checks. It won't warn you > about things that are not actually an error, just a bad idea. So, I'm not saying that a config checker has no value. In fact, I already said the opposite. You seem to be jumping all over me here when all I was trying to do is explain what I think Tom was getting at. I *do* think that pg_file_settings is a helpful feature that is certainly related to what you are trying to do, but I don't think that it means that a config checker is useless. Fair? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
