| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |
| Date: | 2017-01-18 20:01:13 |
| Message-ID: | f89dee27-773a-5cb2-0208-9ae5c6e8db42@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/18/17 8:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I was actually thinking about it the other way- start out by changing
> them to both be 5m and then document next to checkpoint_timeout (and
> max_wal_size, perhaps...) that if you go changing those parameters (eg:
> bumping up checkpoint_timeout to 30 minutes and max_wal_size up enough
> that you're still checkpointing based on time and not due to running out
> of WAL space) then you might need to consider raising the timeout for
> pg_ctl to wait around for the server to finish going through crash
> recovery due to all of the outstanding changes since the last
> checkpoint.
It is important for users to be aware of this, but I don't think the
relationship between checkpoint_timeout and recovery time is linear, so
it's unclear what the exact advice should be.
Personally, I think the timeout in pg_ctl is wrong and needs to be
disabled in practical applications, but that is a different discussion.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2017-01-18 20:01:54 | [PATCH] fix typo in commit a4523c5 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-18 20:00:12 | Re: Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (was Changed SRF in targetlist handling) |