On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So I'm thinking we should adopt a strategy that's less likely to result
> in divergent behavior among different backends. The idea I have in mind
> is to have the first "validation" pass only check that each name is a
> legal GUC variable name, and not look at the values at all. If so, try
> to apply all the values. Any that fail to apply we log as usual, but
> still apply the others. ISTM that verifying the names should be enough
> protection against broken files for practical purposes, and it should be
> something that all backends will agree on even if there are individual
> values that are not valid for all.
>
Would it be possible to have a) a policy that GUCs should verify or
fail to verify consistently for all backends and b) a way for the
backends to scream loudly if they come to a different conclusion than
the master when reloading the file?
--
greg