On 06.10.2011 20:58, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Huh? Surely not, in my mind checkpoint_timeout is the primary way of
controlling checkpoints, and checkpoint_segments you just set "high
enough" so that you never reach it.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
