On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> I'm not necessarily opposed to commandeering the name "smart" for the
>>>> new behavior, so that what we have to find a name for is the old "smart"
>>>> behavior. How about
>>>>
>>>> slow - allow existing sessions to finish (old "smart")
>>>> smart - allow existing transactions to finish (new)
>>>> fast - kill active queries
>>>> immediate - unclean shutdown
>>>
>>> I could live with that. Really, I'd like to have fast just be the
>>> default. But the above compromise would still be a big improvement
>>> over what we have now, assuming the new smart becomes the default.
>>
>> Should this new shutdown mode wait for online backup like old "smart" does?
>
> I think it had better not, because what happens when all the
> connections are gone, no new ones can be made, and yet online backup
> mode is still active?
Yep, I agree that new mode should not. This change of the default shutdown
behavior might surprise some users, so it's better to document also this in
release note.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
