| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
| Date: | 2016-11-18 17:38:14 |
| Message-ID: | ef0d527f-06c0-8521-56cc-271bd3465fd3@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/14/16 4:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> It applies the master and compiled cleanly and no error by
>> regtest. (I didn't confirmed that the problem is still fixed but
>> seemingly no problem)
>
> Thanks for double-checking.
Also looks good to me. I like curinsert_flags and XLOG_SKIP_PROGRESS
better than the old names.
>> If I'm not missing something, at the worst we have a checkpoint
>> after a checkpointer restart that should have been supressed. Is
>> it worth picking it up for the complexity?
That's the way I read it as well. It's not clear to me how the
checkpointer would get restarted under normal circumstances.
I did a kill on the checkpointer and it was ignored. After a kill -9
the checkpointer process came back but also switched the xlog. Is this
the expected behavior?
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-11-18 18:16:22 | Re: WAL recycle retading based on active sync rep. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-18 17:33:26 | Re: Unlogged tables cleanup |