From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |
Date: | 2011-10-06 16:54:53 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYANByJr-ogfu9otHfk-BQR8zmqgY_8afohBOLDzgxczw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale, though. I mean, if
>> very little has happened since the last checkpoint, then the
>> checkpoint will be very cheap. In the totally degenerate case Fujii
>> Masao is reporting, where absolutely nothing has happened, it should
>> be basically free. We'll loop through a whole bunch of things, decide
>> there's nothing to fsync, and call it a day.
>
> I think the point is that a totally idle database should not continue to
> emit WAL, not even at a slow rate. There are also power-consumption
> objections to allowing the checkpoint process to fire up to no purpose.
Hmm, OK. I still think it's a little funny to say that
checkpoint_timeout will force a checkpoint every N minutes except when
it doesn't, but maybe there's no real harm in that as long as we
document it properly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2011-10-06 17:18:44 | Re: Review: Non-inheritable check constraints |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-06 16:46:15 | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |