| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2016-11-22 20:58:28 |
| Message-ID: | 9277.1479848308@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> But I'm a bit confused too - does this make any sort of difference?
> Because the startup path for crash recovery is like this:
> pgstat_reset_all();
> so it seems quite inconsequential whether we write out pgstat, because
> we're going to nuke it either way after an immediate shutdown?
The discussion is exactly about whether we shouldn't get rid of that,
rather than doing what's proposed in this patch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-22 20:59:12 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-11-22 20:55:13 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |