MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPR5_5psNqCm1OQr5LL4v6z02Sh=2YHYUg8NY+3xMzfGHfKs+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ea93ff28-4496-4e3d-a529-191582e02344@aklaver.com> <CAPR5_5q2oCkw19rHb7oy-M0M0purWFM5Jc8ub5xDy_NdhUmRTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <73ff46d2-0bad-4a8d-9928-e494c2d5b0d1@gmail.com> <93702.1760321769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFCRh-94eXetAjtCURs5F0JZQr=kso0rVgVSEmWiSD7wA6VcMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANzqJaDn_mVi4M0CbKnVNwK9RxYOneoCRmd_d69rbjBrwasuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFCRh--P93bF0gpkdvg4MzMNqq5gK=4eWFkmBDR0xw9dmFVAPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <233155.1760369829@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAFCRh--_14QR1_=vZvKVZkcA_1LRO-pQd2p6BBRMreyAv2_z6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPR5_5rRYkM9bO=KC_PY-Bj2Fw=t+maEYG+Am-UgaCHRTWyFsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPR5_5rRYkM9bO=KC_PY-Bj2Fw=t+maEYG+Am-UgaCHRTWyFsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 16:27:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CANzqJaBepwWOdD3dOJPMx8KdHaA3xMk8NA9ST5oCK2HUoyqvig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Option on `postgres` CLI to shutdown when there are no more
 active connections?
To: "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096e5c80641101823"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANzqJaBepwWOdD3dOJPMx8KdHaA3xMk8NA9ST5oCK2HUoyqvig%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000096e5c80641101823
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 3:19=E2=80=AFPM David Barsky <me@davidbarsky.com> w=
rote:
[snip]

> Anyways, I'll try to get at what motivated this whole discussion: would
> there be
> community opposition to adding a CLI flag that'd exit/shutdown all Postgr=
es
> processes once all pending connections close? E.g., something similar to
> SQL
> Server's `auto_close` in the vein of `postgres
> -c "auto_close_after=3D100"` or `pg-ctl start --exit-mode=3Dsmart`?
>

If testing is all scripted, then why not put "pg_ctl stop" at the end of
the script?

--=20
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

--00000000000096e5c80641101823
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 3:19=E2=80=AFPM D=
avid Barsky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:me@davidbarsky.com">me@davidbarsky.com</a=
>&gt; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div>[sn=
ip]=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Anyways, I&#39;ll try t=
o get at what motivated this whole discussion: would there be</div><div dir=
=3D"ltr">community opposition to adding a CLI flag that&#39;d exit/shutdown=
 all Postgres</div><div dir=3D"ltr">processes once all pending connections =
close? E.g., something similar to SQL</div><div dir=3D"ltr">Server&#39;s `a=
uto_close` in the vein of `postgres</div><div dir=3D"ltr">-c &quot;auto_clo=
se_after=3D100&quot;` or `pg-ctl start --exit-mode=3Dsmart`?</div></div><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>If testing=
 is all scripted, then why not put &quot;pg_ctl stop&quot; at the end of th=
e script?</div><div><br></div><span class=3D"gmail_signature_prefix">-- </s=
pan><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">Death t=
o &lt;Redacted&gt;, and butter sauce.<div>Don&#39;t boil me, I&#39;m still =
alive.<br><div><div>&lt;Redacted&gt; lobster!</div></div></div></div></div>=
</div>

--00000000000096e5c80641101823--