X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866AA9DC81F for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:49:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83629-05 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:49:39 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11869DC815 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:49:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k18NnZnh018182; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:49:35 -0500 (EST) To: Simon Riggs cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Description of SIGHUP GUC parameters In-reply-to: <1139437076.1258.266.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <28949.1137872763@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1139437076.1258.266.camel@localhost.localdomain> Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs message dated "Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:17:56 +0000" Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:49:35 -0500 Message-ID: <18181.1139442575@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.108 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108] X-Spam-Score: 0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/6 X-Sequence-Number: 3446 Simon Riggs writes: > Why not simply use the technical phrase: "SIGHUP" etc. We can just say > 'these terms are shorthand for "......" ' > I'm not crazy about the terms but at least it is explicit and accurate. > It would also allow us to have a much longer description of all of the > implications and difficulties of each mode. We have all that in the introductory section; the references made in the per-variable descriptions really have no impact on how verbose the introductory text is ... regards, tom lane