From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) |
Date: | 2012-04-28 15:12:19 |
Message-ID: | 26227.1335625939@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2012-04-27 at 22:30 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> In the few cases where I investigated it TMs don't use transactions
>> themselves (which I think is correct, they don't need them), so
>> terminating any idle session - which the TM would appear as, as its
>> not using txns - would leave prepared transactions in a limbo state
>> till the database is up again, instead of waiting till all prepared
>> transactions are either aborted or committed. It may also choose to
>> coordinate to abort all transactions, but all that is hard if the
>> database shuts you out.
> This would lead to another shutdown mode, one that terminates idle
> sessions unless they have prepared transactions. That could be useful.
Huh? Prepared transactions aren't associated with sessions. At least
not in a context using a TM --- the TM will be doing commits or
rollbacks from a session different from the ones that ran the prepared
transactions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-04-28 15:17:49 | Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-28 15:06:53 | Re: Re: xReader, double-effort (was: Temporary tables under hot standby) |