Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
| От | Alvaro Herrera |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20170310200230.cpk6zp2edythpak2@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I am a bad speaker, I am writing a talk three weeks before the conference > (as opposed to on the plane). Hah. > I noticed in the docs we still reference the > passing of SIGHUP for reloading conf file but we now have pg_reload_conf(); > > It seems the use of pg_reload_conf() would provide a better canonical > interface to our users. Especially those users who are not used to > interacting with the OS (Windows, Oracle etc...) for databases. There are several ways to cause a config file reload (pg_ctl reload, pg_reload_conf, direct SIGHUP). We could have a section in docs listing them all, and then all the other places that say a reload needs to occur simply refer the reader to that section. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: