Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> IOW, I think a fair response to this is "if you're using logrotate with
>> Postgres, you're doing it wrong".
> Well, the original post says that this is how the PGDG RPMs are doing
> it on Debian/Ubuntu. I wonder if that's due to some Debian/Ubuntu
> policy or just a preference on the part of whoever did the packaging
> work. Anyway it's a little hard to argue that the configuration is
> insane when we're shipping it.
We, as in the core project, are not shipping it. I'm also unclear
on why you want to exclude "fix the RPM packaging" as a reasonable
solution. It seems likely that some change in that packaging would
be necessary anyway, as it wouldn't know today about any signaling
method we might choose to adopt.
Having said that, I'm not averse to providing a solution if it's robust,
not too invasive and doesn't break other use-cases. So far we've not
seen a patch that meets those conditions.
regards, tom lane
