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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
