On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 07:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I do. I see no reason to do the latter, ever, so should not be added to > > any TODO. > > Well, stopping recovery earlier would mean fewer locks, which would > mean a better chance for the read-only backends to finish their work > and exit quickly. But I'm not sure how much it's worth worrying > about.
The purpose of the lock is to prevent access to objects when they are in inappropriate states for access. If we stopped startup and allowed access, how do we know that things are in sufficiently good state to allow access? We don't. If the Startup process is holding a lock then that is the only safe thing to do. Otherwise we might allow access to a table with a partially built index or other screw ups. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
