From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: autovacuum and immediate shutdown issues |
Date: | 2009-10-19 16:53:05 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10910190953n36d1229fx17a7744a71d6118e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> writes:
>> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That seems like a fundamentally stupid idea, unless you are unconcerned
>>> with the time and cost of getting the DB running again, which seemingly
>>> you are.
>
>> I disagree that this is fundamentally stupid. We are talking about a
>> situation where the server is about to die, HA solution kicks in and
>> moves it to standby.
>
> Moving it to standby immediately is a good idea, but it does not follow
> that you need to hit the DB over the head with a hammer. A fast-mode
> shutdown seems perfectly adequate. If it isn't, you're going to need
> nontrivial recovery effort anyhow.
All of this is completely besides the point that a database that's
been shutdown immediately / had the power cord yanked comes back up
and doesn't start autovacuuming automatically, which seems a
non-optimal behaviour.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brad Nicholson | 2009-10-19 17:06:35 | Re: autovacuum and immediate shutdown issues |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-19 16:44:15 | Re: autovacuum and immediate shutdown issues |