On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, justin wrote:
> In a big databases a checkpoint could get very large before time had
> elapsed and if server cashed all that work would be rolled back.
No. Once you commit a transaction, it is safe (unless you play with fsync
or asynchronous commit). The size of the checkpoint is irrelevant.
You see, Postgres writes the data twice. First it writes the data to the
end of the WAL. WAL_buffers are used to buffer this. Then Postgres calls
fsync on the WAL when you commit the transaction. This makes the
transaction safe, and is usually fast because it will be sequential writes
on a disc. Once fsync returns, Postgres starts the (lower priority) task
of copying the data from the WAL into the data tables. All the un-copied
data in the WAL needs to be held in memory, and that is what
checkpoint_segments is for. When that gets full, then Postgres needs to
stop writes until the copying has freed up the checkpoint segments again.
Don't worry! The world can't end today because it's already tomorrow
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: justin||Date: 2009-02-09 15:44:31|
|Subject: Re: explanation of some configs|
|Previous:||From: Mario Splivalo||Date: 2009-02-09 10:07:43|
|Subject: Re: Postgres not willing to use an index?|