On 01-02-2016 21:13, Andres Freund wrote: > is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout > limit? > AFAICS the only reason is to run recover quickly. This setting is the same value since day 1.
> A high timeout has the advantage that the total amount of full page > writes reduces and, especially if the whole system fits into s_b, that > the total amount of writes to disk is drastically reduced. > This statement could be added to documentation. Using this use case, I want to propose raising the c_t upper limit to one day or even a week. > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to > even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have > upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general. > A week is an insane default value. However, I'm fine with 10 until 20 minutes (those are the most common values I use for c_t). -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
