Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?