Re: Checkpointer on hot standby runs without looking checkpoint_segments
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, masao.fujii@gmail.com
Date: 2012-06-08T13:58:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 8 June 2012 14:47, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> ISTM that we should avoid triggering a checkpoint on the master if >> checkpoint_segments is less than wal_keep_segments. Such checkpoints >> serve no purpose because we don't actually limit and recycle the WAL >> files and all it does is slow people down. > > On the other hand, I emphatically disagree with this, for the same > reasons as on the other thread. Getting data down to disk provides a > greater measure of safety than having it in memory. Making > checkpoint_segments not force a checkpoint is no better than making > checkpoint_timeout not force a checkpoint. Not sure which bit you are disagreeing with. I have no suggested change to checkpoint_timeout. What I'm saying is that forcing a checkpoint to save space, when we aren't going to save space, makes no sense. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services