On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Yep, I agree that new mode should not. This change of the default shutdown behavior might surprise some users, so it's better to document also this in release note. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
