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
