On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm scheduling more DBT-2 tests at a high # of warehouses per Greg Smith's
> suggestion just to see what happens, but I doubt that will change my mind on
> the above decisions.
I don't either, at worst I'd expect a small documentation update perhaps
with some warnings based on what's discovered there. The form you've
added checkpoint_completion_target in is sufficient to address all the
serious concerns I had; I can turn it off, I can smooth just a bit without
increasing recovery time too much, or I can go all out smooth.
Certainly no one should consider waiting for the tests I asked you about a
hurdle to getting this patch committed, slowing that down was never my
intention by bringing that up. I'm just curious to see if anything
scurries out of some the darker corners in this area when they're
illuminated. I'd actually like to see this get committed relatively soon
because there's two interleaved merges stuck behind this one (the more
verbose logging patch and the LRU modifications).
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-06-26 22:40:28|
|Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3|
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2007-06-26 22:10:16|
|Subject: psql: add volatility to \df+|