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

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwZ7+UEoEwTHuDtUDCQZnSa_=gJG+kane+uhMsv4Bf9N3Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

> 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?


​WFM

> 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.


​WFM​

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Next
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] asynchronous execution