Hiroshi Inoue writes:
Since there were no comments, I'm going to make fast shutdown the default.
Oh I've misunderstood.
I object to the change.
Do you feel the current behaviour is more intuitive? Just curious. I
just think that waiting by default and smart shutdown don't really mix
-Original Message-
From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hiroshi Inoue writes:
Since there were no comments, I'm going to make fast shutdown
the default.
Oh I've misunderstood.
I object to the change.
Do you feel the current behaviour is more intuitive?
Just curious. I
just think that waiting by default and smart shutdown don't really mix
well.
Current behavior prevents manual shutdown from cancelling
running sessions carelessly.
OTOH it's the dba's responsibilty to write appropriate shutdown
scripts and it's not good to rely on
"Hiroshi Inoue" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Just curious. I
just think that waiting by default and smart shutdown don't really mix
well.
Current behavior prevents manual shutdown from cancelling
running sessions carelessly.
Seems that
So, how to resolve that conflict? I think it's better for the script
default to cater to the manual-invocation case, because you're more
likely to forget to add the switch when you're entering the command by
hand. When pg_ctl is invoked from a system shutdown script, you only
have to get
Since there were no comments, I'm going to make fast shutdown the default.
I wrote:
Now that waiting for shutdown is the default, it seems that the default
shutdown mode should also be one where there's a high chance of the
shutdown actually happening. As it stands, if there are connected
-Original Message-
From: Peter Eisentraut
Since there were no comments, I'm going to make fast shutdown the default.
Oh I've misunderstood.
I object to the change.
Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
