Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I think we could split 19.1.2 in two parts, where the first one is the
> > current content minus the paragraph "The configuration file is reread".
> > We'd create "19.1.3 Configuration File Reloads" to contain that
> > paragraph, perhaps not with the exact current wording.
> 
> ​If only 19 and 20 need it I would say its a coin-toss.​

Well, I think it's better to back-reference chapter 19 from 20 than the
other way around.

> > Dunno.  Given that other configuration elements such as config file
> > placement are already in chapter 19, it seems strange to put reloading
> > behavior in 18.
> >
> ​It wouldn't be hateful to cross link to 19 from 20 - but assuming
> pg_reload_conf() impacts pg_hba.conf​ (I don't know off-hand)

(Yes it does.)

> the paragraph
> 
> """
> The pg_hba.conf file is read on start-up and when the main server process
> receives a SIGHUP signal. If you edit the file on an active system, you
> will need to signal the postmaster (using pg_ctl reload or kill -HUP) to
> make it re-read the file.
> """
> 
> is incomplete.

Sure.  We can just reword that along the lines of " ... and when a
reload signal is received, see 19.1.3".  Don't you like that?

> Is "kill" portable?

It isn't -- it doesn't work on Windows, RDS.

> The order or some of these items is interesting but given the general lack
> of field complaints and questions it mustn't be confusion inducing.  Even
> this thread isn't an actual complaint but rather concern about signals in
> general.  Pulling the relevant paragraph out to its own section in 19.1 was
> my first reaction as well and has the merit of simplicity.

Simplicity FTW.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services