Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown)

Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>

From: "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>

To: "Fujii Masao *EXTERN*" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2012-05-07T07:33:56Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

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