From: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit |
Date: | 2016-02-02 01:37:34 |
Message-ID: | 56B0085E.7000606@timbira.com.br |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01-02-2016 21:13, Andres Freund wrote:
> is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout
> limit?
>
AFAICS the only reason is to run recover quickly. This setting is the
same value since day 1.
> A high timeout has the advantage that the total amount of full page
> writes reduces and, especially if the whole system fits into s_b, that
> the total amount of writes to disk is drastically reduced.
>
This statement could be added to documentation. Using this use case, I
want to propose raising the c_t upper limit to one day or even a week.
> 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.
>
A week is an insane default value. However, I'm fine with 10 until 20
minutes (those are the most common values I use for c_t).
--
Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-02 01:38:32 | Re: statistics for shared catalogs not updated when autovacuum is off |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-02 01:24:50 | Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit |