
> >> Remove archdir from pg_control; it ought to be a GUC
> >> parameter, not a special case (not that it's implemented 
> yet anyway).
> 
> > Is archdir really a GUC parameter ?
> 
> Why shouldn't it be?  I see nothing wrong with changing it on-the-fly.

Yes, I think this is a good change, like all others except XID assignment :-)

Andreas

Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:09:30 +0100 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Proposed WAL changes 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> 
> > >> Remove archdir from pg_control; it ought to be a GUC
> > >> parameter, not a special case (not that it's implemented 
> > yet anyway).
> > 
> > > Is archdir really a GUC parameter ?
> > 
> > Why shouldn't it be?  I see nothing wrong with changing it on-the-fly.
> 
> Yes, I think this is a good change, like all others except XID 
> assignment :-)
> 

Could GUC parameters be changed permanently e.g. by SET command ?

For example,
1) start postmaster
2) set archdir to '....'
3) shutdown postmaster

Does PostgreSQL remember the archdir parameter ?

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
 

Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:38:42 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
RE: Proposed WAL changes 
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Could GUC parameters be changed permanently e.g. by SET command ?

That's what postgresql.conf is for ...

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:16:03 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Proposed WAL changes 
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Could GUC parameters be changed permanently e.g. by SET command ?
> 
> That's what postgresql.conf is for ...
> 

Do I have to send SIGHUP after changing postgresql.conf ?

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:06:25 +0900
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: Proposed WAL changes
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Do I have to send SIGHUP after changing postgresql.conf ?

In general, yes.  I think that for the (still vaporware) archdir option,
you might not need to: archdir will only be looked at by the checkpoint
subprocess, and I think that a newly spawned backend will reread
postgresql.conf anyway.  Peter, is that correct?

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:36:17 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Proposed WAL changes 
Tom Lane writes:

> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Do I have to send SIGHUP after changing postgresql.conf ?
>
> In general, yes.  I think that for the (still vaporware) archdir option,
> you might not need to: archdir will only be looked at by the checkpoint
> subprocess, and I think that a newly spawned backend will reread
> postgresql.conf anyway.  Peter, is that correct?

Nope.  The configuration file is only read at postmaster start and after
SIGHUP.  If any starting backend would read it automatically, the admin
could never be sure about his edits.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:57:42 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Proposed WAL changes 