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 8D0D69DC81F for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:46:04 -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 28605-08 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:46:05 -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 5DD4F9DC801 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:46:02 -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 k0LJk3Mq028950 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:46:03 -0500 (EST) To: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org Subject: Description of SIGHUP GUC parameters Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:46:03 -0500 Message-ID: <28949.1137872763@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.095 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095] X-Spam-Score: 0.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/50 X-Sequence-Number: 3440 Currently, the standard boilerplate description of a SIGHUP parameter is This option can only be set at server start or in the postgresql.conf file. We've heard from more than one person who found this confusing --- frequently it's misread as saying that the parameter cannot be changed after postmaster start. Doubtless this is partly because the boilerplate phrase for a POSTMASTER parameter is This option can only be set at server start. However, previous discussions have dried up without coming up with a better phrase. It occurred to me today that this might work better: This option can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the server command line. I think mentioning the config file first is important to focus attention on that. The only other way to set these parameters is via command-line switches, so we should just say that rather than emphasizing the "server start time" aspect of it, which is exactly what not to emphasize. Comments? regards, tom lane