Thank you for the new patch.

At Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:42:43 +0900, Michael Paquier <> 
wrote in <>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Stephen Frost <> wrote:
> > We should probably include in here that we may skip a checkpoint if no
> > activity has happened, meaning that this is a safe setting to set for
> > environments which are idle for long periods.
> OK, here is the interesting bit I just updated (I cut the diff a bit
> as the rest is just reformatting):
>          parameter is greater than zero, the server will switch to a new
>          segment file whenever this many seconds have elapsed since the last
>          segment file switch, and there has been any database activity,
> -        including a single checkpoint.  (Increasing
> -        <varname>checkpoint_timeout</> will reduce unnecessary
> -        checkpoints on an idle system.)
> [...]
> +        including a single checkpoint.  Checkpoints can however be skipped
> +        if there is no database activity, making this parameter a safe
> +        setting for environments which are idle for a long period of time.
> > (I'm thinking embedded systems here).
> (Those are most of my users :{) ).

Ok, (FWIW..,) it seems fine for me.

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:23 AM, David Steele <> wrote:
> > On 11/10/16 1:03 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> Agreed. You certainly may wish to log checkpoints, even on an embedded
> >> or low I/o system, but logging that nothing is happening doesn't seem
> >> useful except perhaps for debugging.
> >
> > Sure, DEBUG1 or DEBUG2 makes sense.
> OK. LOG was useful to avoid noise when debugging the thing, but DEBUG1
> is fine for me as well in the final version.

Agreed. DEBUG2 seems too deep for it.

Well, I think we had the final comment and it has been addressd
so I mark this as ready for committer soon.

Thank you all.

Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to