| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: bgwriter never dies |
| Date: | 2004-02-25 04:07:15 |
| Message-ID: | 269.1077682035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think we want that. IMHO the preferred behavior if the
>> postmaster crashes should be like a "smart shutdown" --- you don't spawn
>> any more backends (obviously) but existing backends should be allowed to
>> run until their clients exit. That's how things have always worked
>> anyway...
> ... In the case of a postmaster crash, I think
> something in the system is so wrong that I'd prefer an immediate shutdown.
Surely some other people have opinions on this? Hello out there?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-25 04:07:20 | Re: [HACKERS] select statement against pg_stats returns |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-25 03:35:04 | Re: select statement against pg_stats returns inconsistent data |