From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Date: | 2013-06-06 05:07:18 |
Message-ID: | CAAZKuFbZ-seEN7f6FdxeDjTpN1txnBWKqd0ePdTw90mguv6p0Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> It's not as insane as introducing an archiving gap, PANICing and
>> crashing, or running this hunk o junk I wrote
>> http://github.com/fdr/ratchet
>>
>
> Well certainly we shouldn't PANIC and crash but that is a simple fix. You
> have a backup write location and start logging really loudly that you are
> using it.
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?
Or, is it that you understand that's what I want, but find the notion
of such a operation hard to relate to?
Or, am I misunderstanding your confusion?
Or, none of the above?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-06-06 05:27:26 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-06-06 05:00:20 | Re: Possible bug in cascaded standby |