Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Date: 2017-03-16 13:31:23
Message-ID: 20170316133123.GA19128@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:57:30AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am a bad speaker, I am writing a talk three weeks before the conference
> (as opposed to on the plane). I noticed in the docs we still reference the
> passing of SIGHUP for reloading conf file but we now have pg_reload_conf();
>
> It seems the use of pg_reload_conf() would provide a better canonical
> interface to our users. Especially those users who are not used to
> interacting with the OS (Windows, Oracle etc...) for databases.

FYI, I did apply this patch for PG 10:

commit 10c064ce4dad088ba2d8b978bff6009b9f22dc3a
Author: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Date: Tue Oct 25 11:26:15 2016 -0400

Consistently mention 'SELECT pg_reload_conf()' in config files

Previously we only mentioned SIGHUP and 'pg_ctl reload' in
postgresql.conf and pg_hba.conf.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Verite 2017-03-16 13:37:03 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-16 13:27:59 Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm