Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LYu-Z_cLgddt99Akik5nDVnVPT5KcVBrGifvGr=EO66A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Still does it matter when the change is effective? > > I don't really care deeply about when the change takes effect, but I > do care about whether the time when the system *says* the change took > effect is the same as when it *actually* took effect. If those aren't > the same, it's confusing. > So, what in your opinion is the way to deal with this? If we make it a PGC_POSTMASTER parameter, it will have a very clear behavior and users don't need to bother whether they have a risk of torn page problem or not and as a side-impact the code will be simplified as well. However, as Michael said the people who get the benefit of this option by disabling/enabling this parameter might complain. Keeping it as a SIGHUP option has the drawback that even after the user has enabled it, there is a risk of torn pages. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: