Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230403190837.qubpnwugfe2k2g46@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> writes: > > v13 attached with requested updates. > > I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion, > but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum > processes reload config files more often than now. However, > I object to allowing ProcessConfigFile to be called from within > commands in a normal user backend. The existing semantics are > that user backends respond to SIGHUP only at the start of processing > a user command, and I'm uncomfortable with suddenly deciding that > that can work differently if the command happens to be VACUUM. > It seems unprincipled and perhaps actively unsafe. I think it should be ok in commands like VACUUM that already internally start their own transactions, and thus require to be run outside of a transaction and at the toplevel. I share your concerns about allowing config reload in arbitrary places. While we might want to go there, it would require a lot more analysis. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: