Re: bgwriter never dies

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bgwriter never dies
Date: 2004-02-25 04:07:15
Message-ID: 269.1077682035@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think we want that. IMHO the preferred behavior if the
>> postmaster crashes should be like a "smart shutdown" --- you don't spawn
>> any more backends (obviously) but existing backends should be allowed to
>> run until their clients exit. That's how things have always worked
>> anyway...

> ... In the case of a postmaster crash, I think
> something in the system is so wrong that I'd prefer an immediate shutdown.

Surely some other people have opinions on this? Hello out there?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-02-25 04:07:20 Re: [HACKERS] select statement against pg_stats returns
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-25 03:35:04 Re: select statement against pg_stats returns inconsistent data