From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J]" <KBaker9(at)its(dot)jnj(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2014-08-09 18:09:36 |
Message-ID: | 16935.1407607776@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think it's anywhere near as black-and-white as you guys claim.
>> What it comes down to is whether allowing existing transactions/sessions
>> to finish is more important than allowing new sessions to start.
>> Depending on the application, either could be more important.
> Nah. The current behaviour circumvents security measures we normally
> consider absolutely essential. If the postmaster died some bad shit went
> on. The likelihood of hitting corner case bugs where it's important that
> we react to a segfault/panic with a restart/crash replay is rather high.
What's your point? Once a new postmaster starts, it *will* do a crash
restart, because certainly no shutdown checkpoint ever happened. The
only issue here is what grace period existing orphaned backends are given
to finish their work --- and it's not possible for the answer to that
to be "zero", so you don't get to assume that nothing happens in
backend-land after the instant of postmaster crash.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-08-09 18:16:01 | Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-08-09 18:04:01 | Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL |