Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2014-08-09 14:00:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. What's your point? Once a new postmaster starts, it *will* do a crash restart, because certainly no shutdown checkpoint ever happened. The only issue here is what grace period existing orphaned backends are given to finish their work --- and it's not possible for the answer to that to be "zero", so you don't get to assume that nothing happens in backend-land after the instant of postmaster crash. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers