On Friday, April 27, 2012 08:38:10 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> >>
> >> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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 difficult to implement than the current
> >>> modes.
> >>
> >> This idea appeared to have some support. I'd like to suggest that we
> >> take this a step further. Instead of adding a fourth mode, I'd like
> >> to suggest that we redefine "smart" to have the behavior described
> >> above.
> >
> > No, I'm not happy with that. Smart shutdown is defined to not affect
> > current sessions. I'm fine with having a fourth mode that acts as you
> > suggest (and, probably, even with making it the default); but not with
> > taking away a behavior that people may well be relying on.
>
> Agreed, but not sure what to call the new mode: "smarter"?
graceful?
Andres