Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch
Date: 2007-06-18 23:44:52
Message-ID: BF27941E-B9BA-47EA-8310-0433CE61618A@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Jun 17, 2007, at 4:39 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> pg_start_backup() should be a normal checkpoint I think. No need for
>>> backup to be an intrusive process.
>>
>> Good point. A spread out checkpoint can take a long time to finish,
>> though. Is there risk for running into a timeout or something if it
>> takes say 10 minutes for a call to pg_start_backup to finish?
>
> That would be annoying, but the alternative is for backups to
> seriously
> effect performance, which would defeat the object of the HOT backup.
> It's not like its immediate right now, so we'd probably be moving from
> 2-3 mins to 10 mins in your example. Most people are expecting their
> backups to take a long time anyway, so thats OK.

We should document it, though; otherwise I can see a bunch of
confused users wondering why pg_start_backup takes so long. Remember
that with longer checkpoints, the odds of them calling
pg_start_backup during one and having to wait are much greater.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2007-06-19 02:28:47 Re: PostgreSQL Developer needed in San Diego
Previous Message Perry, Lance 2007-06-18 23:10:35 PostgreSQL Developer needed in San Diego

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2007-06-18 23:52:42 Re: boolean <=> text explicit casts
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-18 23:03:10 Re: WIP: rewrite numeric division