On 8 June 2012 14:47, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ISTM that we should avoid triggering a checkpoint on the master if >> checkpoint_segments is less than wal_keep_segments. Such checkpoints >> serve no purpose because we don't actually limit and recycle the WAL >> files and all it does is slow people down. > > On the other hand, I emphatically disagree with this, for the same > reasons as on the other thread. Getting data down to disk provides a > greater measure of safety than having it in memory. Making > checkpoint_segments not force a checkpoint is no better than making > checkpoint_timeout not force a checkpoint.
Not sure which bit you are disagreeing with. I have no suggested change to checkpoint_timeout. What I'm saying is that forcing a checkpoint to save space, when we aren't going to save space, makes no sense. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
