On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, 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")
>>> 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