| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2015-03-24 01:45:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSGrVBvGvX7Tb5Hn6FgVQgkV-hwcc0LR6U5b6tARb7edg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
That sounds fine to me as well. A patch would not be complicated, but
is this portion really 9.5 material?
Also, this is a discussion wider than only
log_autovacuum_min_duration, as autovacuum cost parameters are also
available as reloptions.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-03-24 01:58:45 | Re: Incorrect comment in tablecmds.c |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-24 01:12:49 | Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config |