Simon, > It's not a common setup mistake. Nothing changed in this release and > this has never been reported before. > > The behaviour to wait for pg_stop_backup() was added by user request. > The behaviour for shutdown to wait for pg_stop_backup() was also added > by user request.
Your two statements above contradict each other. And, while it makes sense for smart shutdown to wait for pg_stop_backup(), it does not make sense for fast shutdown to wait. Aside from that, the main issue is not having shutdown wait for pg_stop_backup; it's pg_stop_backup never completing. An issue, I'll note, you're ignoring. If you're going to be this defensive whenever anyone reports a bug, it's going to be veeeeeeery slow going to troubleshoot HS. As Robert Haas said: "But for sure, if it doesn't, and instead tells the user to issue pg_stop_backup(), then pg_stop_backup() had better WORK when the user tries to execute it." > Your mistake was not typoing an archive_command, it was not correctly > testing that what you had done was actually working. The fix is to read > the manual and correct the typo. Shutting down the server after failing > to configure it is not likely to be a normal reaction to experiencing an > error in configuration. The problem is you're thinking of an experienced PostgreSQL DBA doing setup on a production server. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the thousands of new users who are going to try PostgreSQL for the first time because of HS/SR on a test installation. If they encounter this issue, they will decide (again) that PostgreSQL is too hard to use and give up on us for another 5 years. We've spent the last few years overcoming the image of PostgreSQL being too complicated for most people to use. You seem hell-bent on restoring it. Given the timing, our project has one chance to establish a new reputation as the SQL database for everybody. User-hostile behavior like this will ruin that chance. Saying "RTFM and test, you newbie!" is not a valid response, and that's what your "you should have read the docs" amounts to. Heck, I *did* read the docs. > ISTM you should collect test reports, then analyse and prioritise them. > This rates pretty low for me: low severity, low frequency. To date, I, Robert Haas, Joe Conway, Josh Drake, and the members of LAPUG all find this highly problematic behavior. So consider it 6 problem reports, not just one. --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
