Re: Streaming Replication: Checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments on standby
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ingo.sander@nsn.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-05-31T15:14:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: > The central question is whether checkpoint_segments should trigger > restartpoints or not. When PITR and restartpoints were introduced, the > answer was "no", on the grounds that when you're doing recovery you're > presumably replaying the logs much faster than they were generated, and > you don't want to slow down the recovery by checkpointing too often. > Now that we have bgwriter active during recovery, and streaming > replication which retains the streamed WALs so that we now risk running > out of disk space with long checkpoint_timeout, it's time to reconsider > that. > I think we have three options: What about (4) pay some attention to the actual elapsed time since the last restart point? All the others seem like kluges that are relying on hard-wired rules that are hoped to achieve something like a time-based checkpoint. regards, tom lane