On 2011-03-09 08:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Casanova<jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@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.
For me smart has always been synonymous to no forced disconnects/exits,
or put different, the 'clean' solution, as opposite to the fast and
unclean shutdown.
An alternative for a clean solution might be to forbid smart shutdown,
if none of the sync standbys is connected. This would prevent the master
to enter a state in which a standby cannot connect anymore.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
