From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit |
Date: | 2016-02-03 01:09:42 |
Message-ID: | 20160203010942.GA4130143@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund 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 generally incree with that attitude - I'm disinclined to go just that
> high though. Going close to INT_MAX means having to care about overflow
> in trivial computations, in a scenario we're unlikely to ever
> test. Sure, we can use a debugger to adjust time or accellerate time
> progress, but that's all unrealistic if we're honest. So maybe go with
> a year?
Okay.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curtis Ruck | 2016-02-03 01:25:49 | Re: PostgreSQL Auditing |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-03 00:39:23 | Re: Integer overflow in timestamp_part() |