Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records
Date: 2012-06-06 20:27:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmobwWz3tQRth=EB=vcbLxtWz+b8aJ=MckdEE_kKeS33ZTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I felt (and still feel) that this was misguided.
>
> Looking at it again, I'm inclined to agree.  The behavior was entirely
> correct up until somebody decided to emit a continuing stream of
> XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS WAL records even when the system is idle.  Why did
> we not fix it by fixing that?

That's exactly what I think we should have done.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-06-06 20:39:42 Re: creating objects in pg_catalog
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-06-06 20:24:49 Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records