From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "maxim(dot)boguk" <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Date: | 2014-10-16 08:52:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLYYyBtkXnHDugMxFnbNRr37H5yLO9qGvEA9aLRto01ug@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 16 October 2014 05:26, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think manual checkpoints should flush everything.
>>
>> This is a valid use case.
>>
>> What other use case is there for a manual checkpoint?
>
> There's people using frequent manual checkpoints to keep performance
> predictable. Unfortunately that actually can improve jitter quite
> measurably.
Hmm, more discussion required there it would seem.
> If we want to change this, fine, but we shouldn't sneak it into the back
> branches, together with a correctness fix
The bug lies in the default behaviour, which we must fix.
I agree backpatching is awkward, though there may also be people who
believe that a CHECKPOINT flushes everything, plus other related bugs
may be lurking.
Seems like we could backpatch this...
CHECKPOINT [ALL (defult) | PERMANENT]
and people who are doing CHECKPOINT PERMANENT for performance reasons
can add the new keyword easy enough, if we highlight it in the release
notes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-16 09:00:45 | Re: BUG #10675: alter database set tablespace and unlogged table |
Previous Message | Joe Van Dyk | 2014-10-16 07:01:34 | Re: BUG #11033: 'pg_dump -a' much slower than 'pg_dump' |