| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Naoya Anzai <anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Akio Iwaasa <iwaasa(at)mxs(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Table-level log_autovacuum_min_duration |
| Date: | 2015-03-24 02:46:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20150324024620.GJ3636@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> So a worker does not see changes in postgresql.conf once it is run and
> >>> processes a database, no? The launcher does run ProcessConfigFile()
> >>> when SIGHUP shows up though.
> >
> >> Maybe this is something that we should change.
> >
> > Yeah, checking for SIGHUP in the worker outer loop (ie once per table)
> > seems like a reasonable thing.
>
> That sounds fine to me as well. A patch would not be complicated, but
> is this portion really 9.5 material?
IMO yes.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-03-24 04:24:18 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-24 02:36:37 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |