Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think the point is that a totally idle database should not continue to >> emit WAL, not even at a slow rate. There are also power-consumption >> objections to allowing the checkpoint process to fire up to no purpose.
> Hmm, OK. I still think it's a little funny to say that > checkpoint_timeout will force a checkpoint every N minutes except when > it doesn't, but maybe there's no real harm in that as long as we > document it properly. Well ... if we think that it's sane to only checkpoint once per WAL segment, maybe we should just take out checkpoint_timeout. We'd need some other mechanism to address replication use-cases, but see my comments to Simon's followup patch just now. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers