On Friday, March 22, 2013 12:48 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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)
I think adding new syntax change is little scary for me, not for the matter of implementation but for building consensus on syntax. Can we do it as an enhancement later? Other ways could be to either give Notice after each command or mention the same in documentation clearly. I feel giving Notice after every command doesn't look good, so may be we can mention the same in documentation. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
