Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown?
Date: 2016-11-18 21:12:05
Message-ID: 1870.1479503525@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO it's not, and closer analysis says that this patch series is an
>> attempt to solve something we already fixed, better, in 9.4.

> ... by the same patch submitter.

[ confused ] The commit log credits 82233ce7e to MauMau and yourself.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-11-18 21:13:36 Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-11-18 21:11:57 Re: Fun fact about autovacuum and orphan temp tables