On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> It's a good question if that still makes sense with Hot Standby. >>> Perhaps we should redefine smart shutdown in standby mode to shut down >>> as soon as all read-only connections have died. >> It's clear that "smart" shutdown doesn't work while something is active. >> Recovery is "active" and so we shouldn't shutdown. It makes sense, it >> works like this already, lets leave it. Document it if needed. > I don't think it's clear, or intuitive for users. In SR, recovery is > *never* done, so smart shutdown never completes (even if the master is > shut down, when I tested it). This is particularly an important issue > when you consider that some/many service and init scripts only use smart > shutdown ... so we'll get a lot of "bug reports" of "posgresql does not > shut down".
Absolutely agreed. The existing smart shutdown behavior makes sense from a certain point of view, but it doesn't seem very... what's the word I'm looking for?... smart. > HOWEVER, I do believe this is an issue we could live with for 9.0 if > it's going to lead to a whole lot of additional debugging of SR. But if > it's an easy fix, it'll avoid a lot of complaints on pgsql-general. Also agreed. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
