On March 3, 2015 04:57:58 PM Jim Nasby wrote: > On 3/3/15 11:48 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm saying that you'll need a way to notice that a reload was processed > > or not. And that can't really be the message itself, there has to be > > some other field; like the timestamp Tom proposes. > > Ahh, right. We should make sure we don't go brain-dead if the system > clock moves backwards. I assume we couldn't just fstat the file...
The timestamp field is already there (in my patch). It gets populated when the server starts and repopulated by SIGHUP_handler. It's the only timestamp pg_ctl pays attention to. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers