From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Date: | 2013-06-06 05:27:26 |
Message-ID: | 51B01DBE.2060207@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/5/2013 10:07 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
> If I told you there were some of us who would prefer to attenuate the
> rate that things get written rather than cancel or delay archiving for
> a long period of time, would that explain the framing of the problem?
I understand that based on what you said above.
> Or, is it that you understand that's what I want, but find the notion
> of such a operation hard to relate to?
I think this is where I am at. To me, you don't attenuate the rate that
things get written, you fix the problem in needing to do so. The problem
is one of provisioning. Please note that I am not suggesting there
aren't improvements to be made, there absolutely are. I just wonder if
we are looking in the right place (outside of some obvious badness like
the PANIC running out of disk space).
> Or, am I misunderstanding your confusion?
To be honest part of my confusion was just trying to parse all the bits
that people were talking about into a cohesive, "this is the actual
problem".
Sincerely,
JD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-06-06 05:54:05 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-06-06 05:07:18 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |