On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-02-11 09:25:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > > Okay, but isn't it better that we remove the snapshot taken
>> > > at checkpoint time in the main branch or till where this code is
>> > > getting back-patched. Do you see any need of same after
>> > > having the logging of snapshot in bgwriter?
>> >
>> > But this one is necessary as well to allow hot standby faster to
>> > initialize, no? Particularly in the case where a bgwriter snapshot
>> > would have been taken just before the checkpoint, there may be up to
>> > 15s until the next one.
>> >
>>
>> It could be helpful if checkpoint is done at shorter intervals, otherwise
>> we anyway log it at 15s interval and if need faster initialisation
>> of hot-standby, then it is better to reduce the log snapshot interval
>> in bgwriter.
>
> No. By emitting the first snapshot directly after the determination of
> the redo pointer, we can get into STANDBY_SNAPSHOT_READY more
> quickly. Especially if some of the snapshots are overflowed. During
> startup 15s can be a *long* time; but on the other hand there's not much
> benefit at logging snapshots more frequently when the system is up.
> I don't think we should tinker with the frequency/logging points, while
> fixing the issue here.
Agreement from here on this point. Andres, what's still remaining on
my side is to know how to we detect in XLoginsert() how we update the
LSN progress. I was willing to add XLogInsertExtended() with a
complementary int/bool flag and let XLogInsert() alone as you don't
like much doing this decision making using just the record type as I
did in one of the patch upthread, however you did not like this idea
either. What exactly do you have in mind?
--
Michael