Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity

I'm using 9.5.3 . I had read about that bug but I didn't know that
wal_level=archive is equivalent to hot_standby from this point of view! I
guess it's equivalent in 9.5.3 too.
Regards
Pupillo

2016-11-07 13:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I know that, but with neither database activity or chekpoint, it doesn't
> > force anything. The fact is that there are checkpoints being executed
> every
> > checkpoint_timeout, and I don't understand why as if no WAL has been
> written
> > we should not care about passing the timeout.
>
> You may want to look at that:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72930@wrigleys.
> postgresql.org
> And the patches on this thread to fix the checkpoint skip logic:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN
> JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN
> JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> My guess is that you are using 9.6 because wal_level = archive is
> equivalent to hot_standby, and the checkpoint skip logic is broken
> because of standby snapshots happening in the bgwriter...
> --
> Michael
>