From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit |
Date: | 2016-02-04 12:30:47 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSFVSCnR_5-ord4yVpfGj+NDX0o-7Npomp_B+cJ7YWh1g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to
>> even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have
>> upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general.
>
> In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations
> rather than paternalism. Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68 years).
I agree. I'm in favor of having things be what is sometimes called
foolproof, but I think that you can only take that so far, and it's
mostly a matter of guiding a more or less reasonable user in the right
direction. Making it easy to do the right thing and hard to do the
wrong thing.
I don't think you can effectively design anything around a user that
makes perversely bad decision at every turn. If you investigate why a
user made a bad decision, there will usually be a chain of faulty but
not outrageous reasoning behind it.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-02-04 12:37:26 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-02-04 12:24:21 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |