| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2012-05-05 16:41:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF690P=iS73NR5sRavP=21GEqaa5qrBvzaaSHWE4kvDgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-05 16:44:14 | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-05-05 16:37:31 | Re: remove dead ports? |