Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce checkpoints and WAL traffic on low activity database serv

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce checkpoints and WAL traffic on low activity database serv
Date: 2011-11-03 03:16:09
Message-ID: 4092.1320290169@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/02/2011 05:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> You're missing the point that it never was like that. I've not altered
>> the situation.

> Robert's point is more that the existing docs are already broken; this
> new patch can just increase how bad the drift between reality and
> documentation can be.

Yeah. I agree that we need to adjust the docs. Anybody object
to Greg's proposed text?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-03 04:51:25 pgsql: Fix handling of PlaceHolderVars in nestloop parameter management
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-11-03 00:21:28 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce checkpoints and WAL traffic on low activity database serv

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message kris 2011-11-03 06:42:33 Re: Is there a good reason we don't have INTERVAL 'infinity'?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-11-03 01:41:44 Re: superusers are members of all roles?