Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Date: 2007-06-26 20:00:54
Message-ID: 46817076.8030007@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> 
>> We could just allow any value up to 1.0, and note in the docs that you should
>> leave some headroom, unless you don't mind starting the next checkpoint a bit
>> late. That actually sounds pretty good.
> 
> What exactly happens if a checkpoint takes so long that the next checkpoint
> starts. Aside from it not actually helping is there much reason to avoid this
> situation? 

Not really. We might run out of preallocated WAL segments, and will have 
to create more. Recovery could be longer than expected since the real 
checkpoint interval ends up being longer, but you can't make very 
accurate recovery time estimations anyway.

> Have we ever actually tested it?

I haven't.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-06-26 20:35:36
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-06-26 19:54:49
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group