From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
Date: | 2023-04-03 19:08:37 |
Message-ID: | 20230403190837.qubpnwugfe2k2g46@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-04-03 14:43:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > v13 attached with requested updates.
>
> I'm afraid I'd not been paying any attention to this discussion,
> but better late than never. I'm okay with letting autovacuum
> processes reload config files more often than now. However,
> I object to allowing ProcessConfigFile to be called from within
> commands in a normal user backend. The existing semantics are
> that user backends respond to SIGHUP only at the start of processing
> a user command, and I'm uncomfortable with suddenly deciding that
> that can work differently if the command happens to be VACUUM.
> It seems unprincipled and perhaps actively unsafe.
I think it should be ok in commands like VACUUM that already internally start
their own transactions, and thus require to be run outside of a transaction
and at the toplevel. I share your concerns about allowing config reload in
arbitrary places. While we might want to go there, it would require a lot more
analysis.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-04-03 19:14:33 | Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2023-04-03 19:07:15 | Re: Thoughts on using Text::Template for our autogenerated code? |