From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Checkpointer on hot standby runs without looking checkpoint_segments |
Date: | 2012-06-29 07:10:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+-u6reSJj_WS9Z2jY_otd-X4fHF1vNq35SW2j9uDjxrg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 June 2012 09:14, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hello, I will make this patch start again for this CF.
>
> The requirement for this patch is as follows.
>
> - What I want to get is similarity of the behaviors between
> master and (hot-)standby concerning checkpoint
> progression. Specifically, checkpoints for streaming
> replication running at the speed governed with
> checkpoint_segments. The work of this patch is avoiding to get
> unexpectedly large number of WAL segments stay on standby
> side. (Plus, increasing the chance to skip recovery-end
> checkpoint by my another patch.)
I think we need to be clearer about this:
I reject this patch and am moving to rejected on the CF manager.
The "increase chance to skip recovery end checkpoint" is completely
gone as a reason to do this (see other thread).
Plus the premise that we want more restartpoints is wrong, with
reasons explained by Heikki, in detail, months ago.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2012-06-29 07:11:56 | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-06-29 07:07:03 | Re: Pg default's verbosity? |