From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Date: | 2015-02-03 15:19:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaoaKGwdPqwp-L1iN9468KUqZ+XgOZ7ebeM4d4hNMB8yw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 03:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Second, I*think* that these settings are symmetric and, if that's
>> right, then I suggest that they ought to be named symmetrically.
>> Basically, I think you've got min_checkpoint_segments (the number of
>> recycled segments we keep around always) and max_checkpoint_segments
>> (the maximum number of segments we can have between checkpoints),
>> essentially splitting the current role of checkpoint_segments in half.
>> I'd go so far as to suggest we use exactly that naming. It would be
>> reasonable to allow the value to be specified in MB rather than in
>> 16MB units, and to specify it that way by default, but maybe a
>> unit-less value should have the old interpretation since everybody's
>> used to it. That would require adding GUC_UNIT_XSEG or similar, but
>> that seems OK.
>
> Works for me. However, note that "max_checkpoint_segments = 10" doesn't mean
> the same as current "checkpoint_segments = 10". With checkpoint_segments =
> 10 you end up with about 2x-3x as much WAL as with max_checkpoint_segments =
> 10. So the "everybody's used to it" argument doesn't hold much water.
Hmm, that's surprising. Why does that happen?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-03 15:20:03 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-03 15:12:12 | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |