On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 19:42, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> It occurs to me that we may need a new mode, which disconnects sessions >>> that are not in a transaction (or as soon as they are) but leaves >>> in-progress transactions alone; this could be the new default. Of >>> course, this is much more difficult to implement than the current modes. >> >> This idea appeared to have some support. I'd like to suggest that we >> take this a step further. Instead of adding a fourth mode, I'd like >> to suggest that we redefine "smart" to have the behavior described > > +1762329!
Thanks. :-) >> above. This is based on the theory that (1) people who like smart >> shutdown like it because it allows currently-running transactions to >> complete without error, and will find it acceptable to have idle >> transactions terminated immediately and other sessions terminated > > Uh, I don't think it's ok to terminate an idle transaction > immediately. An idle *session* is ok, though - maybe that's what you > mean? Yes, exactly. What the patch does is arrange things so that, when smart shutdown is requested, we terminate each session as soon as it is both (1) idle and (2) not in a transaction. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers