On 08/26/2015 03:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Is it unreasonable of me to ask for the Windows behavior to be fixed at
> the same time? I dunno. It's perhaps less broken than the Unix behavior,
> but that doesn't make it desirable. OTOH it might be a significantly
> larger patch, and I confess I'm not even too sure what we'd have to do.
>
> So I think the way to move this forward is to investigate how to hold
> the SSL config constant until SIGHUP in an EXEC_BACKEND build. If we
> find out that that's unreasonably difficult, maybe we'll decide that
> we can live without it; but I'd like to see the question investigated
> rather than ignored.
I think this is a real concern and one that I will look into, to see if
it can be fixed with a reasonable amount of work.
Andreas
