From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) |
Date: | 2012-05-07 15:59:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobciZAOX26j-vGmgt4OtQNyi1fyiQAg7VM=BNxCLPa59Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name "smart" for the
>>> new behavior, so that what we have to find a name for is the old "smart"
>>> behavior. How about
>>>
>>> slow - allow existing sessions to finish (old "smart")
>>> smart - allow existing transactions to finish (new)
>>> fast - kill active queries
>>> immediate - unclean shutdown
>>
>> I could live with that. Really, I'd like to have fast just be the
>> default. But the above compromise would still be a big improvement
>> over what we have now, assuming the new smart becomes the default.
>
> Should this new shutdown mode wait for online backup like old "smart" does?
I think it had better not, because what happens when all the
connections are gone, no new ones can be made, and yet online backup
mode is still active?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-07 16:39:24 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-07 15:15:11 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |