On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On 3/20/15 9:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> OK, are we up for changing the default pg_ctl shutdown method
> for 9.5, ("smart
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/20/15 9:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, are we up for changing the default pg_ctl shutdown method
for 9.5, ("smart" to "fast"), [...]?
>>>
>>> I'm up for it. I think it's long ove
On 3/20/15 9:44 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I've certainly objected to it in the past, b
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've certainly objected to it in the past, but I don't
> believe I wa
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> I've certainly objected to it in the past, but I don't believe
>> >> I was the only one objecting
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:10:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've certainly objected to it in the past, but I don't believe
> >> I was the only one objecting.
>
> > What's your feeling now?
>
> I'm prepared to yield o
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've certainly objected to it in the past, but I don't believe
>> I was the only one objecting.
> What's your feeling now?
I'm prepared to yield on the point.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgs
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>>> But TBH I suspect 95% of the problems here would vanish if smart
>>> shutdown weren't the default ...
>
>> But for your repeated objections, we would have changed the default to fast
>> years ago. AFAICT everyone else is
Robert Haas writes:
>> But TBH I suspect 95% of the problems here would vanish if smart
>> shutdown weren't the default ...
> But for your repeated objections, we would have changed the default to fast
> years ago. AFAICT everyone else is in favor of that.
I've certainly objected to it in the p
On Oct 19, 2014 4:34 AM, "Robert Haas" wrote:
>
>
> > But TBH I suspect 95% of the problems here would vanish if smart
> > shutdown weren't the default ...
>
> But for your repeated objections, we would have changed the default to
fast years ago. AFAICT everyone else is in favor of that.
>
Yes, m
> But TBH I suspect 95% of the problems here would vanish if smart
> shutdown weren't the default ...
But for your repeated objections, we would have changed the default to fast
years ago. AFAICT everyone else is in favor of that.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker
On 10/16/14, 11:46 PM, David G Johnston wrote:
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Something else mentioned was that once you start a smart shutdown you
have no good way (other than limited ps output) to see what the shutdown
is waiting on. I'd like to have some way to get back into the database
to see what's goin
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Jim Nasby <
> Jim.Nasby@
> > writes:
>> Something else mentioned was that once you start a smart shutdown you
>> have no good way (other than limited ps output) to see what the shutdown
>> is waiting on. I'd like to have some way to get back into the database
>> to see what's g
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> But TBH I suspect 95% of the problems here would vanish if smart
> shutdown weren't the default ...
+1000 ...
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Jim Nasby writes:
> Something else mentioned was that once you start a smart shutdown you
> have no good way (other than limited ps output) to see what the shutdown
> is waiting on. I'd like to have some way to get back into the database
> to see what's going on. Perhaps we could allow superusers
On 10/17/2014 03:59 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Over in the "Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown"
> thread...
>
> On 10/16/14, 2:31 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
>> There were some comments that this might not actually be the case and/or
>> that the postmaster was simply waiting for clie
Over in the "Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown" thread...
On 10/16/14, 2:31 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
> There were some comments that this might not actually be the case and/or
> that the postmaster was simply waiting for clients to disconnect due to
> smart shutdown being in
17 matches
Mail list logo
