On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to >> > any TODO. >> >> Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would >> mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work >> and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying >> about. > > The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in > inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed > access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to > allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then > that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a > table with a partially built index or other screw ups.
Hmm. Good point. I guess you could really only stop the startup process safely when it wasn't holding any locks anyhow - you couldn't just kill it and have it release the locks. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
