Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HP5ER4vUEJAdtwf7=T86FvwhohiG1DbuvHbT4ougpjfOQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
changed via SQL [review]
Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I wasn't complaining that the change isn't instant. I understand that can't > be done. But I think the signal to reload should be sent. If people > execute SET PERSISTENT, and it doesn't actually do anything until the server > is next restarted, they will be very surprised. It's OK if it doesn't do > anything for a second, or until new sessions connect, because that's just > how SIGHUP/session variables work. That's a documentation issue. Not > reloading the config at all, I think that's going to trigger a ton of future > support problems. Think also about the case where someone wants to change multiple values together and having just some set and not others would be inconsistent. I can see you're right about surprising users but is there not another way to solve the same problem without making that impossible? -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: