From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT |
Date: | 2020-12-06 01:33:46 |
Message-ID: | 20201206013346.GA26219@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Dec-05, Stephen Frost wrote:
> So- just to be clear, CHECKPOINTs are more-or-less always happening in
> PG, and running this command might do something or might end up doing
> nothing depending on if a checkpoint is already in progress and this
> request just gets consolidated into an existing one, and it won't
> actually reduce the amount of WAL replay except in the case where
> checkpoint completion target is set to make a checkpoint happen in less
> time than checkpoint timeout, which ultimately isn't a great way to run
> the system anyway.
You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
that is the case, please explain why don't we have
checkpoint_completion_target set to 0.9 by default? Should we change
that?
> Assuming we actually want to do this, which I still generally don't
> agree with since it isn't really clear if it'll actually end up doing
> something, or not, wouldn't it make more sense to have a command that
> just sits and waits for the currently running (or next) checkpoint to
> complete..? For the use-case that was explained, at least, we don't
> actually need to cause another checkpoint to happen, we just want to
> know when a checkpoint has completed, right?
Yes, I agree that the use case for this is unclear.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy Fan | 2020-12-06 03:38:55 | Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-12-06 01:31:09 | Re: Change definitions of bitmap flags to bit-shifting style |