| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Renner <michael(dot)renner(at)amd(dot)co(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior |
| Date: | 2009-04-03 13:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | 27334.1238765245@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Rather than deplore that you can't expedite the checkpoint, why don't we
> just make it possible?
+1
> The first question is what the default behavior should be? We've seen
> enough complaints and I've been bitten by that myself during development
> of other stuff often enough that I think we should change the default to
> immediate. From backwards-compatibility point of view, we shouldn't
> change the default, but then again an immediate checkpoint was what you
> got before 8.3.
I think we shouldn't change the default. Which puts a hole in your
suggestion for function naming. But then again, I like the extra
argument better anyway ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-03 15:23:26 | Re: Path separator |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-03 13:25:17 | Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior |