"Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> writes: > I think the other side of this is that we don't want checkpointing to > continually fail because of a noncritical failure. That could also > lead to problems down the road.
Yeah, a persistent failure to complete checkpoints is very nasty.
Your disk will soon fill with unrecyclable WAL. I don't see how
that's better than a somewhat hypothetical performance issue.
regards, tom lane
