| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
| Date: | 2018-04-18 14:37:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LYu-Z_cLgddt99Akik5nDVnVPT5KcVBrGifvGr=EO66A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Still does it matter when the change is effective?
>
> I don't really care deeply about when the change takes effect, but I
> do care about whether the time when the system *says* the change took
> effect is the same as when it *actually* took effect. If those aren't
> the same, it's confusing.
>
So, what in your opinion is the way to deal with this? If we make it
a PGC_POSTMASTER parameter, it will have a very clear behavior and
users don't need to bother whether they have a risk of torn page
problem or not and as a side-impact the code will be simplified as
well. However, as Michael said the people who get the benefit of this
option by disabling/enabling this parameter might complain. Keeping
it as a SIGHUP option has the drawback that even after the user has
enabled it, there is a risk of torn pages.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-18 14:52:51 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-04-18 14:35:24 | Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so? |