Fujii Masao 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 shouldn't; I like to think of it as some kind of "quite fast"
shutdown (provided there are no long-running transactions).
And I still think that we should choose a name different from "smart"
to indicate that something has changed, even if it is the new default.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe