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

Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(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 19:54:49
Message-ID: 87sl8etrsm.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"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? Have we ever actually tested it?

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-06-26 20:00:54
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2007-06-26 19:39:38
Subject: pg_ctl -w (wait) option on Windows

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