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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers