On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> > On 10/20/10 6:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I find it impossible to believe that's >> >> a good decision, and IMHO we should be focusing on how to make the >> >> parameters PGC_SIGHUP rather than PGC_POSTMASTER, which would give us >> >> most of the same benefits without throwing away hard-won performance. >> > >> > I'd be happy to accept that. ?Is it possible, though? >> >> I sketched an outline of the problem AIUI here: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01348.php >> >> I think it's possible; I'm not quite sure how hard it is. >> Unfortunately, I've not had as much PG-hacking time lately as I'd >> like... > > Have we documented these TODOs?
I have not. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
