| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem |
| Date: | 2007-05-30 18:01:44 |
| Message-ID: | 6181.1180548104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just finished giving someone the standard advice to wait a bit before
>> trying to drop a database that'd just been accessed:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-05/msg01505.php
> Is this a synchronization issue?
The problem is that the user thinks his previous disconnect is finished
when it may not be --- it's entirely possible in fact that his old
backend hasn't even received the disconnect message yet. So I don't
think it's possible to rely on there being a state change inside the
database indicating that the other guy is about to exit.
Even if we had a semaphore of the sort you suggest, I doubt people would
want DROP DATABASE to wait indefinitely. The real question here is how
long is it reasonable for DROP DATABASE to wait before failing ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2007-05-30 18:42:29 | New cast between inet/cidr and bytea |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-30 17:41:05 | Re: TOAST usage setting |