From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |
Date: | 2011-10-06 17:58:50 |
Message-ID: | 4706.1317923930@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think the point is that a totally idle database should not continue to
>> emit WAL, not even at a slow rate. There are also power-consumption
>> objections to allowing the checkpoint process to fire up to no purpose.
> Hmm, OK. I still think it's a little funny to say that
> checkpoint_timeout will force a checkpoint every N minutes except when
> it doesn't, but maybe there's no real harm in that as long as we
> document it properly.
Well ... if we think that it's sane to only checkpoint once per WAL
segment, maybe we should just take out checkpoint_timeout.
We'd need some other mechanism to address replication use-cases, but see
my comments to Simon's followup patch just now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Goncharov | 2011-10-06 18:02:14 | libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-06 17:56:21 | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |