Re: bgwriter never dies
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: bgwriter never dies |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200402250819.34197.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: bgwriter never dies (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: bgwriter never dies
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 23:47, Neil Conway wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: > > In the case of a postmaster crash, I think something in the system > > is so wrong that I'd prefer an immediate shutdown. > > I agree. Allowing existing backends to commit transactions after the > postmaster has died doesn't strike me as being that useful, and is > probably more confusing than anything else. > > That said, if it takes some period of time between the death of the > postmaster and the shutdown of any backends, we *need* to ensure that > any transactions committed during that period still make it to durable > storage. > Yes, roll back any existing/uncommited transactions and shutdown those connections, but make sure that committed transactions are stored on disk before exiting completly. Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: