Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
Date: 2016-11-25 12:20:00
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1611251311350.18480@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello Tomas,

> #checkpoint_flush_after = 0 # 0 disables,
> # default is 256kB on linux, 0 otherwise

> I find this pretty confusing, because for all other GUCs in the file, the
> commented-out value is the default one. In this case that would mean "0",
> disabling the flushing.
>
> But in practice we use platform-dependent defaults - 256/512K on Linux, 0
> otherwise. There are other GUCs where the default is platform-specific, but
> none of them suggests "disabled" is the default state.
>
> While the 9.6 cat is out of the bag, I think we can fix this quite easily -
> use "-1" to specify the default value should be used, and use that in the
> sample file. This won't break any user configuration.

Although I understand the issue, I'm not sure about -1 as a special value
to mean the default.

> If that's considered not acceptable, perhaps we should at least improve the
> comments, so make this clearer.

Yep, what about not putting a value and inverting/adapting the comments,
maybe something like:

#checkpoint_flush_after = ... # default is 256kB on linux, 0 otherwise
# where 0 disables flushing

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2016-11-25 12:44:04 Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2016-11-25 12:07:00 Re: Typo in comment