Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit
Date: 2016-02-03 03:31:15
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob9COCKqEuEUF8qq+_4QnLpA-ht7TztpBXyDsf5RpNcJA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

Sounds good to me, too.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2016-02-03 03:41:04 Re: Minor code improvements to create_foreignscan_plan/ExecInitForeignScan
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-02-03 03:29:44 Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive