Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwYeMVLTqAfAx7HHYf+N_jaMpvYDS-10ff4F-6uqzgWEEA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 1:19 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2020-10-13 00:43, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Over in Bug# 16652 [1] Christoph failed to recognize the fact that
> signal sending functions are inherently one-way just as signals are.  It
> seems worth heading off this situation in the future by making it clear
> how signals behave and, in the specific case of pg_reload_conf, that the
> important feedback one would hope to get out of a success/failure
> response from the function call must instead be found in other locations.

I agree that the documentation could be improved here.  But I don't see
how the added advice actually helps in practice.  How can you detect
reload errors by inspecting pg_settings etc.?

I decided I was trying to be too thorough here by including stuff other than the file related view added mainly for this purpose (of which I missed including the one pertinent to the bug report - pg_hba_file_rules).

Attached is a version 2 patch listing only pg_hba_file_rules and pg_file_settings as the "before reload" places (as they do show current file contents) to validate that the server understands the newly changed contents of the pg_hba.conf file and the configuration settings.

David J.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: how to replicate test results in cf-bot on travis