| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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>, 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 21:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | cd05cc4d-f9f2-478d-b3f0-a1a537bf419b@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/21/16 4:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-21 16:35:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, progress could just as well be replay. Or the actual insertion
> point. Or up to where we've written out. Or synced out. Or
> replicated....
>
> Open to other suggestions - I'm not really happy with consistency LSN,
> but definitely unhappy with progress LSN.
MinConsistencyLSN?
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-12-21 21:44:09 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-12-21 21:41:03 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |