On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 5:44 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then perhaps we could do some more involved surgery on master that > achieves smart shutdown's stated goal here, and lets parallel queries > actually run? Better ideas welcome.
I have noticed before that the smart shutdown code does not disclose to the rest of the system that a shutdown is in progress: no signals are sent, and no shared memory state is updated. That makes it a bit challenging for any other part of the system to respond to the smart shutdown in a way that is, well, smart. But I guess that's not really the problem in this case. It seems to me that we could fix pmdie() to skip parallel workers; I think that the postmaster could notice that they are lagged as BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL. But we'd also have to fix things so that new parallel workers could be launched during a smart shutdown, which looks not quite so simple. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
