| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
| Date: | 2016-12-21 21:35:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYwhUpbL7itvUVJDKF+HK=1MkdYOf9ZujuSuK0sF=g_HQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> - Similarly I don't like the name "progress LSN" much. What does
> "progress" really mean in that". Maybe "consistency LSN"?
Whoa. -1 from me for "consistency LSN". Consistency has to with
whether the cluster has recovered up to the minimum recovery point or
whatever -- that is -- questions like "am i going to run into torn
pages?" and "should I expect some heap tuples to maybe be missing
index tuples, or the other way around?". What I think "progress LSN"
is getting at -- actually fairly well -- is whether we're getting
anything *important* done, not whether we are consistent. I don't
mind changing the name, but not to consistency LSN.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-21 21:40:10 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-21 21:28:54 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |