Re: Taking databases offline

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mariusz Czu ada <manieq(at)idea(dot)net(dot)pl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Taking databases offline
Date: 2001-11-22 00:26:38
Message-ID: 200111220026.fAM0Qcn24769@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > But had to shutdown server first. So my question (and
> > suggestion) is to consider:
> > ALTER DATABASE <dbname> { OFFLINE [ { WAIT | IMMEDIATE }] | ONLINE };
>
> Of course, you have this ability now on an installation-wide basis
> with the available postmaster shutdown options. It's difficult to get
> excited about expending the work to make this doable on a per-database
> basis, mainly because I foresee multi-database installations getting
> much less popular once we implement SQL schemas. Lots of schemas in
> one (user) database per installation will become the norm, I think.
> In that scenario a per-database shutdown option will be useless.

You can shut database access with pg_hba.conf. I would edit
pg_hba.conf, shutdown postmaster to flush all pages, then start up with
database inactive. You can then re-enable access to the database later
with pg_hba.conf.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-22 00:37:26 Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-22 00:25:17 Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance)