Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> I've been proposing a workable implementation in this very thread.
>
> > Which is to track where the setting came from, right? I was thinking it
> > wasn't workable because people were complaining about it. :-)
>
> Peter's complaining because he thinks the current behavior is OK.
> AFAICT he isn't saying that my idea wouldn't make the behavior be
> what you and I want, but that he doesn't like that behavior.
Getting back to propogating SIGHUP to the children, if I have issued a
SET in my session, does a postmaster SIGHUP wipe that out, and even if
it doesn't, what if I do a SHOW early in my session, see the setting is
OK, then find later that is is changed, for example, the ONLY
inheritance setting. I guess what I am saying is that I see session
stability as a feature, rather than propogating changes to running
children, which I think could cause more harm than good.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026