On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 14:01 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > I already explained that killing the startup process first is a bad idea >> > for many reasons when shutdown was discussed. Can't remember who added >> > the new standby shutdown code recently, but it sounds like their design >> > was pretty poor if it didn't include shutting down properly with HS. I >> > hope they fix the bug they have introduced. HS was never designed to >> > work that way, so there is no flaw there; it certainly worked when >> > committed. >> >> New smart shutdown during recovery doesn't kill the startup process until >> all of the read only backends have gone away. So it works fine with HS. > > Yes, I thought some more about what Robert said. HS works identically to > normal running in this regard, so there's no hint of a bug or design > flaw on that for either of us to worry about.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Sometimes not shutting down doesn't sound like a feature to me. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00098.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00103.php -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers