| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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: | 2012-06-08 17:43:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJvb5ZX-2Bj5==aUC679cJtGNg3rkyDhCqEmteicsCEHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 June 2012 18:01, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>> What would be much better, IMHO, is if the number of retained
>> segments could ratchet down when the system is idle, eventually
>> reaching a state where we keep only one segment beyond the one
>> currently in use.
>
> I'm a bit sceptical about this. It seems to me that you wouldn't actually
> be able to do anything useful with the conserved space, since postgres
> could re-claim it at any time. At which point it'd better be available,
> or your whole cluster comes to a screeching halt...
Agreed, I can't really see why you'd want to save space when the
database is slow at the expense of robustness and reliability when the
database speeds up.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-06-08 17:45:44 | Re: New Postgres committer: Kevin Grittner |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2012-06-08 17:42:34 | Re: New Postgres committer: Kevin Grittner |