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

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Date
Msg-id d71e3fb4-6413-5f09-b62c-98e7bef477e8@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

I am a bad speaker, I am writing a talk three weeks before the 
conference (as opposed to on the plane). I noticed in the docs we still 
reference the passing of SIGHUP for reloading conf file but we now have 
pg_reload_conf();

It seems the use of pg_reload_conf() would provide a better canonical 
interface to our users. Especially those users who are not used to 
interacting with the OS (Windows, Oracle etc...) for databases.

Sincerely,

JD
-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE command progress checker
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?