MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DDPQ1RV5FE9U.I2WW34NGRD8Z@jeltef.nl>
 <DFJ3E1X9169E.WV892I950LYW@jeltef.nl>
 <DFY0RHAZTTXJ.15AD95RE6A5N5@jeltef.nl>
 <CAN4CZFOw2v9G_9vuP0vnNH8K9X_UeSOyq=gWJp7bdGZ5HKNTDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DG9X4XC66EMC.2S34SS1SZ8K3K@jeltef.nl> <DGBMBCDXXNBG.3CNHEZ9QVB4GL@jeltef.nl>
 <CAN4CZFMLpakQb8qohDAnrOoQ1-UrvmzJewZss95Y+Mf_J+iNeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DH1JZEYZOBSW.1QEY6MI45FCIL@jeltef.nl>
 <f97528e4-5766-415e-b998-678da925ce05@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: <f97528e4-5766-415e-b998-678da925ce05@vondra.me>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:11:32 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAOYmi+mAJ5jF-XrxFz1BAcAPfJCm9Yy1uvRNwfNz8q+1YMKDig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add GoAway protocol message for graceful but fast server
 shutdown/switchover
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>,
 Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2BmAJ5jF-XrxFz1BAcAPfJCm9Yy1uvRNwfNz8q%2B1YMKDig%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:20=E2=80=AFPM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wro=
te:
> * In fact, does it improve the smart shutdown case in practice? Let's
> say we have a single instance, and we're restarting it. It'll send
> GoAway to all the clients, the good clients will try to reconnect. But
> if there's even a single "bad" client ignoring the GoAway, all the
> well-behaved clients will get stuck. Ofc, that can happen without the
> GoAway message too - a client may disconnect because of timeout etc. But
> it makes it more likely, and it'll affect the well-behaved clients.
>
> * Would it make sense to have some payload in the GoAway message? I'm
> thinking about (a) some deadline by which the client should disconnect,
> e.g. time of planned restart / shutdown, (b) priority, expressing how
> much the client should try to disconnect (and maybe take more drastic
> actions).

I'd been wondering about these as well, but in the context of the
tangential thread [1]. HTTP has much stronger semantics for its GOAWAY
frames, for instance.

--Jacob

[1] https://postgr.es/m/CAOYmi%2BmSn8xQ7ExqY07V6G2oFXN2nY%2B7f4yf_RV2%3D7xN=
CKwW-Q%40mail.gmail.com