On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 09:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Hmm. Good point. I guess you could really only stop the startup > process safely when it wasn't holding any locks anyhow - you couldn't > just kill it and have it release the locks.
... and if it isn't holding any locks at all, there is no reason to kill Startup first => no TODO item. -- 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
