* Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > The first word that comes to mind for for just disregarding the end > time is that it's a sloppy checkpoint. There is all sorts of sloppy > behavior you might do here, but I've worked under the assumption > that ignoring the contract with the administrator was frowned on by > this project. If people want this sort of behavior in the server, > I'm satisfied my distaste for the idea and the reasoning behind it > is clear now.
For my part, I agree with Greg on this. While we might want to provide
an option of "go ahead and go past checkpoint timeout if the server gets
too busy to keep up", I don't think it should be the default.
To be honest, I'm also not convinced that this approach is better than
the existing mechanism where the user can adjust checkpoint_timeout to
be higher if they're ok with recovery taking longer and I share Greg's
concern about this backoff potentially running away and causing
checkpoints which never complete or do so far outside the configured
time.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
