| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: bgwriter never dies |
| Date: | 2004-02-25 04:47:58 |
| Message-ID: | 87k72bahoh.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> In the case of a postmaster crash, I think something in the system
> is so wrong that I'd prefer an immediate shutdown.
I agree. Allowing existing backends to commit transactions after the
postmaster has died doesn't strike me as being that useful, and is
probably more confusing than anything else.
That said, if it takes some period of time between the death of the
postmaster and the shutdown of any backends, we *need* to ensure that
any transactions committed during that period still make it to durable
storage.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan M. Gardner | 2004-02-25 08:19:29 | Re: [HACKERS] [SQL] Materialized View Summary |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-02-25 04:37:11 | Re: [GENERAL] select statement against pg_stats returns |