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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "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 17:12:06
Message-ID: 3f8310ef-5677-dd52-235e-655ede43c604@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/18/16 12:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> My feeling is that 82233ce7e has obsoleted all of the proposals made so
> far in this thread, and that we should reject them all.

Yes, it seems that very similar concerns were already addressed there.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-11-18 17:23:01 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-11-18 17:02:49 Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown?