From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: bgwriter never dies |
Date: | 2004-02-25 13:19:34 |
Message-ID: | 200402250819.34197.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 23:47, Neil Conway wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > In the case of a postmaster crash, I think something in the system
> > is so wrong that I'd prefer an immediate shutdown.
>
> I agree. Allowing existing backends to commit transactions after the
> postmaster has died doesn't strike me as being that useful, and is
> probably more confusing than anything else.
>
> That said, if it takes some period of time between the death of the
> postmaster and the shutdown of any backends, we *need* to ensure that
> any transactions committed during that period still make it to durable
> storage.
>
Yes, roll back any existing/uncommited transactions and shutdown those
connections, but make sure that committed transactions are stored on disk
before exiting completly.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ray Aspeitia | 2004-02-25 14:08:52 | postgres Mac OS X startup script |
Previous Message | Mark Gibson | 2004-02-25 11:35:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Materialized View Summary |