On 2015-03-03 11:43:46 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > It's certainly better than now, but why put DBAs through an extra step for > no reason?
Because it makes it more complicated than it already is? It's nontrivial to capture the output, escape it to somehow fit into a delimited field, et al. I'd rather have a committed improvement, than talks about a bigger one. > Though, in the case of multiple errors perhaps it would be best > to just report a count and point them at the log. It'll be confusing to have different interfaces in one/multiple error cases. > >Generally we obviously need some status to indicate that the config file > >has been reloaded, but that could be easily combined with storing the > >error message. > > Not sure I'm following... are you saying we should include the error message > in postmaster.pid? I'm saying that you'll need a way to notice that a reload was processed or not. And that can't really be the message itself, there has to be some other field; like the timestamp Tom proposes. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
