On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Brad Nicholson <bnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 10:53 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Brad Nicholson <bnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> That seems like a fundamentally stupid idea, unless you are unconcerned >> >>> with the time and cost of getting the DB running again, which seemingly >> >>> you are. >> > >> >> I disagree that this is fundamentally stupid. We are talking about a >> >> situation where the server is about to die, HA solution kicks in and >> >> moves it to standby. >> > >> > Moving it to standby immediately is a good idea, but it does not follow >> > that you need to hit the DB over the head with a hammer. A fast-mode >> > shutdown seems perfectly adequate. If it isn't, you're going to need >> > nontrivial recovery effort anyhow. >> >> All of this is completely besides the point that a database that's >> been shutdown immediately / had the power cord yanked comes back up >> and doesn't start autovacuuming automatically, which seems a >> non-optimal behaviour. > > It's also not going to endear us very much to the VLDB crowd - it will > amounts to a multi-hour crash recovery for those folks while analyze > regenerates statistics. But this would be AOK behaviour for small transactional databases? Again, besides the point, but important. The real point is a database that doesn't run autovac after an emergency shutdown is broken by design, and not just for one use case. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
