| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Fujii Masao *EXTERN*" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(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 07:33:56 |
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C207D50470@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao 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 shouldn't; I like to think of it as some kind of "quite fast"
shutdown (provided there are no long-running transactions).
And I still think that we should choose a name different from "smart"
to indicate that something has changed, even if it is the new default.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-07 08:06:54 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2012-05-06 20:55:54 | Re: What is the current status of FOR UPDATE cursors ? |