* Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > The first word that comes to mind for for just disregarding the end > time is that it's a sloppy checkpoint. There is all sorts of sloppy > behavior you might do here, but I've worked under the assumption > that ignoring the contract with the administrator was frowned on by > this project. If people want this sort of behavior in the server, > I'm satisfied my distaste for the idea and the reasoning behind it > is clear now.
For my part, I agree with Greg on this. While we might want to provide an option of "go ahead and go past checkpoint timeout if the server gets too busy to keep up", I don't think it should be the default. To be honest, I'm also not convinced that this approach is better than the existing mechanism where the user can adjust checkpoint_timeout to be higher if they're ok with recovery taking longer and I share Greg's concern about this backoff potentially running away and causing checkpoints which never complete or do so far outside the configured time. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature