On Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Friday, March 22, 2013 7:33 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Amit Kapila escribió:
> > > On Friday, March 22, 2013 8:57 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > Amit Kapila escribió:
> >
> > > > > I think adding new syntax change is little scary for me, not
> for
> > > > > the matter of implementation but for building consensus on
> > syntax.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot but agree on that point.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't get your point.
> > > Do you mean to say that you don't agree with me and want new syntax
> > as
> > > proposed by you to be implemented?
> >
> > On the contrary, I was saying I agree with you on the difficulty on
> > getting consensus on this.
>
> Now based on final discussion, I will go-ahead and document the
> behavior
> rather than using SIGHUP at end or giving NOTICE at end of command.
> Let me know if anybody still feels otherwise.
Updated the patch to remove SIGHUP at end of command and updated docs
accordingly.
> Apart from this during Greg's testing, he found a performance problem
> with
> running pg_reload_conf() along with my patch the reason for which
> actually
> turns out to be a memory
> growth. I have attempted to fix it in the patch ctx_growth_fix_v1.patch
> which is currently attached in CF queue along with my Patch.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-
> id/004801ce216b$e37c3b30$aa74b190$@kapila@
> huawei.com
> I think that should be done irrespective of SET Persistent Patch.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
