Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 24530.1335551376@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode
for shutdown)
Re: smart shutdown at end of transaction (was: Default mode for shutdown) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> It occurs to me that we may need a new mode, which disconnects sessions >> that are not in a transaction (or as soon as they are) but leaves >> in-progress transactions alone; this could be the new default. Of >> course, this is much more difficult to implement than the current modes. > This idea appeared to have some support. I'd like to suggest that we > take this a step further. Instead of adding a fourth mode, I'd like > to suggest that we redefine "smart" to have the behavior described > above. No, I'm not happy with that. Smart shutdown is defined to not affect current sessions. I'm fine with having a fourth mode that acts as you suggest (and, probably, even with making it the default); but not with taking away a behavior that people may well be relying on. > This is based on the theory that (1) people who like smart > shutdown like it because it allows currently-running transactions to > complete without error, I think they like it because it allows currently-running *sessions* to complete without error. You have no real basis for asserting that relocating that goalpost won't change the game. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: