| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
| Date: | 2016-11-14 09:29:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQhYhbtevxUrOBK0wFo6pVi6LcqwpAX+CnKXtzLRfxMVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> It applies the master and compiled cleanly and no error by
> regtest. (I didn't confirmed that the problem is still fixed but
> seemingly no problem)
Thanks for double-checking.
> If I'm not missing something, at the worst we have a checkpoint
> after a checkpointer restart that should have been supressed. Is
> it worth picking it up for the complexity?
I think so, that's not that much code if you think about it as there
is already a routine to get the timestamp of the lastly switched
segment that gets used by checkpointer.c.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-11-14 09:38:04 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-11-14 09:27:31 | Re: [PATCH] Allow TAP tests to be run individually |