RE: A few new options for CHECKPOINT

From: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "'Bossart, Nathan'" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: A few new options for CHECKPOINT
Date: 2020-11-25 01:07:47
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB2990BF4A6EA75E2356DDF35DFEFA0@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
> It may be useful for backups taken with the "consistent snapshot"
> approach. As noted in the documentation [0], running CHECKPOINT
> before taking the snapshot can reduce recovery time. However, users
> might wish to avoid the IO spike caused by an immediate checkpoint.
>
> [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/backup-file.html

Ah, understood. I agree that the slow or spread manual checkpoint is good to have.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashwin Agrawal 2020-11-25 01:10:16 Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-11-25 01:07:14 Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority