Re: bgwriter never dies

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: 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 04:47:58
Message-ID: 87k72bahoh.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan M. Gardner 2004-02-25 08:19:29 Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] Materialized View Summary
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-02-25 04:37:11 Re: [GENERAL] select statement against pg_stats returns