Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]

> From: gsstark(at)gmail(dot)com [mailto:gsstark(at)gmail(dot)com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Stark
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:50 AM
> To: Greg Smith
> Cc: Amit Kapila; Andres Freund; Boszormenyi Zoltan; pgsql-
> hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be
> changed via SQL [review]
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't complaining that the change isn't instant. I understand
> that can't
> > be done. But I think the signal to reload should be sent. If people
> > execute SET PERSISTENT, and it doesn't actually do anything until the
> server
> > is next restarted, they will be very surprised. It's OK if it
> doesn't do
> > anything for a second, or until new sessions connect, because that's
> just
> > how SIGHUP/session variables work. That's a documentation issue.
> Not
> > reloading the config at all, I think that's going to trigger a ton of
> future
> > support problems.
>
> Think also about the case where someone wants to change multiple
> values together and having just some set and not others would be
> inconsistent.

Do you mean to say that because some variables can only be set after restart
can lead to
inconsistency, or is it because of asynchronous nature of pg_reload_conf()?

> I can see you're right about surprising users but is there not another
> way to solve the same problem without making that impossible?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.