Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown)

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> This idea appeared to have some support.  I'd like to suggest that we
>> take this a step further.  Instead of adding a fourth mode, I'd like
>> to suggest that we redefine "smart" to have the behavior described
>> above.
>
> No, I'm not happy with that.  Smart shutdown is defined to not affect
> current sessions.  I'm fine with having a fourth mode that acts as you
> suggest (and, probably, even with making it the default); but not with
> taking away a behavior that people may well be relying on.

I think there is no point at all in having a discussion about this
unless we can first agree that the overwhelming majority of people who
have commented on this issue on this list are unhappy with the current
default behavior. If we are not going to change the default behavior,
then there is zero point in talking about this. So I am nervous about
your use of the word "probably", because I do not want to do a bunch
of work on this just to add a fourth shutdown mode without changing
the default to something that does not suck. I would like to get some
agreement that we ARE going to change the default behavior, and then
we can argue about what exactly we're going to change it to.

>> This is based on the theory that (1) people who like smart
>> shutdown like it because it allows currently-running transactions to
>> complete without error,
>
> I think they like it because it allows currently-running *sessions*
> to complete without error.  You have no real basis for asserting that
> relocating that goalpost won't change the game.

I'm not asserting that. What I am asserting is that the vast majority
of users will consider the revised game to be more fun than the
original one.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company