On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 08:38, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The fast shutdown handling seems fine, but why not just handle smart >>> shutdown the same way? >> >> currently, smart shutdown means no new connections, wait until >> existing ones close normally. for consistency, it should behave the >> same for sync rep. > > Agreed. I think that user who wants to request smart shutdown expects all > the existing connections to basically be closed normally by the client. So it > doesn't seem to be good idea to forcibly close the connection and prevent > the COMMIT from being returned in smart shutdown case. But I'm all ears > for better suggestions.
"don't use smart shutdowns"? ;) Anyway, for those that *do* use smart intentionally, I agree that doing any kind of forced close at all is just plain wrong. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
