Re: Table-level log_autovacuum_min_duration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Naoya Anzai <anzai-naoya(at)mxu(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Akio Iwaasa <iwaasa(at)mxs(dot)nes(dot)nec(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Table-level log_autovacuum_min_duration
Date: 2015-03-23 14:07:12
Message-ID: 31249.1427119632@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> So a worker does not see changes in postgresql.conf once it is run and
>> processes a database, no? The launcher does run ProcessConfigFile()
>> when SIGHUP shows up though.

> Maybe this is something that we should change.

Yeah, checking for SIGHUP in the worker outer loop (ie once per table)
seems like a reasonable thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-03-23 14:16:36 Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints?
Previous Message didier 2015-03-23 13:54:11 Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs