Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem
Date: 2007-06-01 23:42:24
Message-ID: B7086A58-B9E7-45F6-85EC-2D1A2BABA5BE@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On May 31, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>>> However, it suddenly struck me that we could
>>> probably make most of the problem go away if we put that same wait
> into
>>> DROP DATABASE itself --- that is, if we see other backends in the
>>> target DB, sleep for a second or two and then recheck before
>>> erroring
> out.
>
> Yup, waiting in drop database up to 10-30 secs would imho be fine.

Even 10 seconds seems rather long, doesn't it? You'd have to have an
awfully busy system to need to wait more than like 5 seconds for the
closing backend to get scheduled, and it'd be rather ugly to force
someone to wait 30 seconds just to find out that someone's still
connected to the database.

How about starting with 5 seconds and seeing if that takes care of
most situations?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-01 23:46:48 Re: BufFileWrite across MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE boundary
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-01 22:58:18 Re: [HACKERS] like/ilike improvements