On July 3, 2015 06:21:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan de Visser <jan@de-visser.net> writes:
> > Attached a new patch, rebased against the current head. Errors in
> > pg_hba.conf and pg_ident.conf are now also noticed.
> >
> > I checked the documentation for pg_ctl reload, and the only place where
> > it's explained seems to be runtime.sgml and that description is so
> > high-level that adding this new bit of functionality wouldn't make much
> > sense.
>
> BTW, it's probably worth pointing out that the recent work on the
> pg_file_settings view has taken away a large part of the use-case for
> this, in that you can find out more with less risk by inspecting
> pg_file_settings before issuing SIGHUP, instead of SIGHUP'ing and
> hoping you didn't break anything too nastily. Also, you can use
> pg_file_settings remotely, unlike pg_ctl (though admittedly you
> still need contrib/adminpack or something to allow uploading a
> new config file if you're doing remote admin).
>
> I wonder whether we should consider inventing similar views for
> pg_hba.conf and pg_ident.conf.
>
> While that's not necessarily a reason not to adopt this patch anyway,
> it does mean that we should think twice about whether we need to add
> a couple of hundred lines for a facility that's less useful than
> what we already have.
Since you were the one proposing the feature, I'm going to leave it to you
whether or not I should continue with this. I have no use for this feature;
for me it just seemed like a nice bite-sized feature to get myself acquainted
with the code base and the development process. As far as I'm concerned that
goal has already been achieved, even though finalizing a patch towards commit
(and having my name in the release notes ha ha) would be the icing on the
cake.
>
> BTW, this version of this patch neglects to update the comments in
> miscadmin.h, and it makes the return convention for
> ProcessConfigFileInternal completely unintelligible IMO; the inaccuracy
> and inconsistency in the comments is a symptom of that. I didn't read it
> in enough detail to say whether there are other problems.
OK, miscadmin.h. I'll go and look what that's all about. And would it make
sense to find a better solution for the ProcessConfigFileInternal return value
(which is convoluted, I agree - I went for the solution with the least impact
on existing code), or should I improve documentation?
>
> regards, tom lane