From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Date: | 2016-12-22 02:09:31 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTce8tZVLL_d83ftsQSDbPY59p_A=DT5-+scoC44WYyBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:41 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 12/21/16 4:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Working on committing this (tomorrow morning, not tonight). There's
>> some relatively minor things I want to change:
Thanks for looking at this patch.
>> - I don't like the name XLogSetFlags() - it's completely unclear what
>> that those flags refer to - it could just as well be replay
>> related. XLogSetRecordFlags()?
>
> That sounds a bit more clear.
Fine for me.
>> - Similarly I don't like the name "progress LSN" much. What does
>> "progress" really mean in that". Maybe "consistency LSN"?
>
> Yes, please. I think that really cuts to the core of what the patch is
> about. Progress made perfect sense to me, but consistency is always the
> goal, and what we are saying here is that this is the last xlog record that
> is required to achieve consistency. Anything that happens to be after it is
> informational only.
Fine as well.
>> - It's currently required to avoid triggering archive timeouts and
>> checkpoints triggering each other, but I'm nervous marking all xlog
>> switches as unimportant. I think it'd be better to only mark timeout
>> triggered switches as such.
>
> That seems fine to me. If the system is truly idle that might trigger one
> more xlog switch that is needed, but it seems like a reasonable compromise.
On a long-running embedded system the difference won't matter much. So
I guess I'm fine with this bit as well.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-22 02:34:07 | Re: Hang in pldebugger after git commit : 98a64d0 |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-22 02:02:01 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |