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

On Friday, March 22, 2013 7:33 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Amit Kapila escribió:
> > On Friday, March 22, 2013 8:57 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Amit Kapila escribió:
>
> > > > I think adding new syntax change is little scary for me, not for
> > > > the matter of implementation but for building consensus on
> syntax.
> > >
> > > I cannot but agree on that point.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't get your point.
> > Do you mean to say that you don't agree with me and want new syntax
> as
> > proposed by you to be implemented?
>
> On the contrary, I was saying I agree with you on the difficulty on
> getting consensus on this.

Now based on final discussion, I will go-ahead and document the behavior
rather than using SIGHUP at end or giving NOTICE at end of command.
Let me know if anybody still feels otherwise.

Apart from this during Greg's testing, he found a performance problem with
running pg_reload_conf() along with my patch the reason for which actually
turns out to be a memory
growth. I have attempted to fix it in the patch ctx_growth_fix_v1.patch
which is currently attached in CF queue along with my Patch.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/004801ce216b$e37c3b30$aa74b190$@kapila@
huawei.com
I think that should be done irrespective of SET Persistent Patch.

> I don't know where I learned this phrase or even if it's in common
> usage. After a not-so-quick search I see it explained here:
> http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/usage/but.htm

You were right, I was not able to understand.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.