Greg Smith escribió: > On 3/21/13 2:38 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >Also, while I think that MOST people will probably want a SIGHUP right > >after SET PERSISTENT, I am not sure that EVERYONE will want that. If > >you want it and it doesn't happen automatically, you can always do it > >by hand. > > This is a fair position, and since that's how the feature as written > right now works that helps. I think proceeding this way needs to > hand some sort of hint back to the user though, telling them the > change isn't active until SIGHUP. The path I don't want to see if > where someone uses SET PERSISTENT and can't figure out why nothing > changed. It should be as obvious as we can make it to someone that > the explicit reload is necessary.
Maybe add some syntax to prevent the SIGHUP for the rare case where that is wanted, say SET PERSISTENT (reload=off) var=val; (perhaps WITH at the end, dunno) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
