I'm using 9.5.3 . I had read about that bug but I didn't know that wal_level=archive is equivalent to hot_standby from this point of view! I guess it's equivalent in 9.5.3 too. Regards Pupillo
2016-11-07 13:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I know that, but with neither database activity or chekpoint, it doesn't > > force anything. The fact is that there are checkpoints being executed > every > > checkpoint_timeout, and I don't understand why as if no WAL has been > written > > we should not care about passing the timeout. > > You may want to look at that: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72930@wrigleys. > postgresql.org > And the patches on this thread to fix the checkpoint skip logic: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN > JVietAC=6kfkyv_45d...@mail.gmail.com#CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN > JVietAC=6kfkyv_45d...@mail.gmail.com > > My guess is that you are using 9.6 because wal_level = archive is > equivalent to hot_standby, and the checkpoint skip logic is broken > because of standby snapshots happening in the bgwriter... > -- > Michael >
