Gregory Stark wrote:
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

We could just allow any value up to 1.0, and note in the docs that you should
leave some headroom, unless you don't mind starting the next checkpoint a bit
late. That actually sounds pretty good.

What exactly happens if a checkpoint takes so long that the next checkpoint
starts. Aside from it not actually helping is there much reason to avoid this

Not really. We might run out of preallocated WAL segments, and will have to create more. Recovery could be longer than expected since the real checkpoint interval ends up being longer, but you can't make very accurate recovery time estimations anyway.

Have we ever actually tested it?

I haven't.

  Heikki Linnakangas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to