On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name "smart" for the >>> new behavior, so that what we have to find a name for is the old "smart" >>> behavior. How about >>> >>> slow - allow existing sessions to finish (old "smart") >>> smart - allow existing transactions to finish (new) >>> fast - kill active queries >>> immediate - unclean shutdown >> >> I could live with that. Really, I'd like to have fast just be the >> default. But the above compromise would still be a big improvement >> over what we have now, assuming the new smart becomes the default. > > Should this new shutdown mode wait for online backup like old "smart" does?
I think it had better not, because what happens when all the connections are gone, no new ones can be made, and yet online backup mode is still active? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
