Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rID13-0070wS-UO for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 19:23:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rID12-00EtPV-BF for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 19:23:00 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rID11-00EtPK-W4 for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 19:22:59 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rID0y-00E1PG-UU for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 19:22:59 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 3BQJMrYw2091032; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 14:22:53 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: =?UTF-8?Q?R=C4=B1dvan_Korkmaz?= cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_file_settings In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to =?UTF-8?Q?R=C4=B1dvan_Korkmaz?= message dated "Tue, 26 Dec 2023 21:12:24 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2091030.1703618573.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 14:22:53 -0500 Message-ID: <2091031.1703618573@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk =?UTF-8?Q?R=C4=B1dvan_Korkmaz?= writes: > In order to summarize things in first mail, from the documentation, we > expect to see relevant errors in the "error" column of pg_file_setitings > view for an invalid value of parameter. Thanks for the report. It mostly does work, but not for 'log_connections', and it turns out also not for other PGC_BACKEND GUCs (of which there are only half a dozen, probably explaining how this didn't get noticed). I posted a proposed fix at [1]. regards, tom lane [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2089235.1703617353%40sss.pgh.pa.us