Fujii Masao 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 shouldn't; I like to think of it as some kind of "quite fast" shutdown (provided there are no long-running transactions). And I still think that we should choose a name different from "smart" to indicate that something has changed, even if it is the new default. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
