From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19 |
Date: | 2011-03-09 11:41:06 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikHj5jpGQ=_TGpk3d=LdzV5Y85RM9+xT2d17QMj@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 08:38, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fast shutdown handling seems fine, but why not just handle smart
>>> shutdown the same way?
>>
>> currently, smart shutdown means no new connections, wait until
>> existing ones close normally. for consistency, it should behave the
>> same for sync rep.
>
> Agreed. I think that user who wants to request smart shutdown expects all
> the existing connections to basically be closed normally by the client. So it
> doesn't seem to be good idea to forcibly close the connection and prevent
> the COMMIT from being returned in smart shutdown case. But I'm all ears
> for better suggestions.
"don't use smart shutdowns"? ;)
Anyway, for those that *do* use smart intentionally, I agree that
doing any kind of forced close at all is just plain wrong.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian von Bidder | 2011-03-09 12:00:55 | Re: Beginner question: Hacking environment? |
Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-03-09 11:20:18 | pl/python - thanks! |