Re: Continue work on changes to recovery.conf API

Andres Freund <andres@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