Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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