Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1LYu-Z_cLgddt99Akik5nDVnVPT5KcVBrGifvGr=EO66A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so?
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP