| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sharp or fuzzy checkpoint? |
| Date: | 2002-02-24 04:00:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200202240400.g1O405T13142@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I'm interested in point-in-time-recovery (or archive recovery) too.
> I'm wondering current implementation of CHECKPOINT is whether "SHARP"
> or "FUZZY" checkopint. If it's a "SHARP" one, it would be a serious
> performance bottle neck according to the Gray's transaction book. Does
> anybody know anything about that?
We have a FUZZY checkpoint because we continue processing during
the checkpoint period. In fact, we can add WAL files during the
checkpoint activity.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-02-24 04:15:48 | Re: Duration of beta period |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-24 03:58:25 | Duration of beta period |