Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@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? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
