Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > It occurs to me that we may need a new mode, which disconnects sessions
> > that are not in a transaction (or as soon as they are) but leaves
> > in-progress transactions alone; this could be the new default. ?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> It occurs to me that we may need a new mode, which disconnects sessions
> that are not in a transaction (or as soon as they are) but leaves
> in-progress transactions alone; this could be the new default. Of
> course, this is much more dif
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 19:26, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 03:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, and more to the point, do I want to finish whatever I was doing in
>> that window? Fast-by-default is a nice hammer to swing, but one day
>> you'll pound your finger.
>
> Magnus pointed out that
On 12/15/2010 03:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, and more to the point, do I want to finish whatever I was doing in
> that window? Fast-by-default is a nice hammer to swing, but one day
> you'll pound your finger.
Magnus pointed out that most distributions already use fast shutdown.
So it seems mo
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 16:11, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié dic 15 12:03:06 -0300 2010:
>
>> Certainly, if you have an environment where people are mostly logging
>> into the database directly (not through a connection pooler) and they
>> do a few important qu
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 15:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Really? Personally I'm quite happy with that default.
>
>> Why? It seems to me that just leads to, oh, gee, the database isn't
>> shutting down, where's the window where
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, and more to the point, do I want to finish whatever I was doing in
>> that window? Fast-by-default is a nice hammer to swing, but one day
>> you'll pound your finger.
> I guess. I've pounded my finger enough time w
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, and more to the point, do I want to finish whatever I was doing in
>>> that window? Fast-by-default is a nice hammer to swing, but one day
>>> you'll pound your f
On Dec 15, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié dic 15 12:03:06 -0300 2010:
>
>> Certainly, if you have an environment where people are mostly logging
>> into the database directly (not through a connection pooler) and they
>> do a few important quer
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié dic 15 12:03:06 -0300 2010:
>
>> Certainly, if you have an environment where people are mostly logging
>> into the database directly (not through a connection pooler) and they
>> do a few important
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié dic 15 12:03:06 -0300 2010:
> Certainly, if you have an environment where people are mostly logging
> into the database directly (not through a connection pooler) and they
> do a few important queries and then disconnect, smart is a better
> default. But
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Really? Personally I'm quite happy with that default.
>
>> Why? It seems to me that just leads to, oh, gee, the database isn't
>> shutting down, where's the window whe
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? Personally I'm quite happy with that default.
> Why? It seems to me that just leads to, oh, gee, the database isn't
> shutting down, where's the window where I failed to exit a session?
Yeah, and more to the poi
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:39:12AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > I'm sure this has been up before, but hey, let's take it another round.
> > Why don't we change the default shutdown mode for pg_ctl from "smart"
> > to "fast"? I've never come across a single usecase where "sm
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> I'm sure this has been up before, but hey, let's take it another round.
>> Why don't we change the default shutdown mode for pg_ctl from "smart"
>> to "fast"? I've never come across a single usecase where "smart" is
>>
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I'm sure this has been up before, but hey, let's take it another round.
> Why don't we change the default shutdown mode for pg_ctl from "smart"
> to "fast"? I've never come across a single usecase where "smart" is
> what people *want*...
Really? Personally I'm quite hap
I'm sure this has been up before, but hey, let's take it another round.
Why don't we change the default shutdown mode for pg_ctl from "smart"
to "fast"? I've never come across a single usecase where "smart" is
what people *want*... Not sure if others have?
Yes, I realize it's somewhat of a backwa
17 matches
Mail list logo
