Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations
>>> rather than paternalism. Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68 years).
>> I generally incree with that attitude - I'm disinclined to go just that
>> high though. Going close to INT_MAX means having to care about overflow
>> in trivial computations, in a scenario we're unlikely to ever
>> test. Sure, we can use a debugger to adjust time or accellerate time
>> progress, but that's all unrealistic if we're honest. So maybe go with
>> a year?
> Okay.
I've gotta go with the "paternalism" side of the argument here. Suppose
you configure your system to checkpoint once a year --- what is going to
happen when the year is up? Or when you try to shut it down? You *will*
regret such a setting.
I don't think we should allow the checkpoint distances to be so large that
checkpoints don't happen in the normal course of events. I'd be okay with
the max being a day, perhaps.
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
