On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> > On 10/20/10 6:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> I find it impossible to believe that's
>> >> a good decision, and IMHO we should be focusing on how to make the
>> >> parameters PGC_SIGHUP rather than PGC_POSTMASTER, which would give us
>> >> most of the same benefits without throwing away hard-won performance.
>> >
>> > I'd be happy to accept that. ?Is it possible, though?
>>
>> I sketched an outline of the problem AIUI here:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01348.php
>>
>> I think it's possible; I'm not quite sure how hard it is.
>> Unfortunately, I've not had as much PG-hacking time lately as I'd
>> like...
>
> Have we documented these TODOs?
I have not.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company