| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? |
| Date: | 2017-03-10 23:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ7+UEoEwTHuDtUDCQZnSa_=gJG+kane+uhMsv4Bf9N3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>
> > is incomplete.
>
> Sure. We can just reword that along the lines of " ... and when a
> reload signal is received, see 19.1.3". Don't you like that?
>
>
WFM
>
> > The order or some of these items is interesting but given the general
> lack
> > of field complaints and questions it mustn't be confusion inducing. Even
> > this thread isn't an actual complaint but rather concern about signals in
> > general. Pulling the relevant paragraph out to its own section in 19.1
> was
> > my first reaction as well and has the merit of simplicity.
>
> Simplicity FTW.
>
>
WFM
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-03-10 23:19:25 | Re: asynchronous execution |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-10 22:51:55 | Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? |