On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-08-04 10:54:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I believe that multiple people have said multiple times that we should > >> change the behavior so that orphaned backends exit immediately; I > >> think you are the only one defending the current behavior. There are > >> several problems with the status quo: > > > +1. I think the current behaviour is a seriously bad idea. > > I don't think it's anywhere near as black-and-white as you guys claim. > What it comes down to is whether allowing existing transactions/sessions > to finish is more important than allowing new sessions to start. > Depending on the application, either could be more important.
Nah. The current behaviour circumvents security measures we normally consider absolutely essential. If the postmaster died some bad shit went on. The likelihood of hitting corner case bugs where it's important that we react to a segfault/panic with a restart/crash replay is rather high. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
