On 27.04.2012 21:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 20:48, Tom Lane<tgl@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")
>
>> How about "wait" instead of "slow"?
>
> I kinda liked "slow" vs "fast", but if you think that's too cute ...
> ("wait" doesn't seem very good, though, since all these except immediate
> are waiting, just for different things.)
All the modes indeed wait (except for immediate), so I think it would
make sense to define the modes in terms of *what* they wait for.
wait sessions - allow existing sessions to finish (old "smart")wait transactions - allow existing transactions to
finish(new)wait checkpoint - kill active querieswait none - unclean shutdown
Hmm, the latter two are perhaps a bit confusing. So maybe:
wait_sessions - allow existing sessions to finish (old "smart")wait_transactions - allow existing transactions to
finish(new)fast - kill active queriesimmediate - unclean shutdown
Just thinking out loud here..
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com