On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 08:38, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The fast shutdown handling seems fine, but why not just handle smart
>>> shutdown the same way?
>>
>> currently, smart shutdown means no new connections, wait until
>> existing ones close normally. for consistency, it should behave the
>> same for sync rep.
>
> Agreed. I think that user who wants to request smart shutdown expects all
> the existing connections to basically be closed normally by the client. So it
> doesn't seem to be good idea to forcibly close the connection and prevent
> the COMMIT from being returned in smart shutdown case. But I'm all ears
> for better suggestions.
"don't use smart shutdowns"? ;)
Anyway, for those that *do* use smart intentionally, I agree that
doing any kind of forced close at all is just plain wrong.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/