Re: [HACKERS] checkpoints after database start/immediate checkpoints

2016-02-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-02-03 09:57:00 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > I wonder if this essentially point at checkpoint_timeout being wrongly > > defined: Currently it means we'll try to finish a checkpoint > >

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoints after database start/immediate checkpoints

2016-02-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-02-03 09:57:00 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > I wonder if this essentially point at checkpoint_timeout being wrongly >> > defined:

Re: [HACKERS] checkpoints after database start/immediate checkpoints

2016-02-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Right now it takes checkpoint_timeout till we start a checkpoint, and > checkpoint_timeout + checkpoint_timeout * checkpoint_completion_target > till we complete the first checkpoint after shutdown/forced checkpoints. > >

[HACKERS] checkpoints after database start/immediate checkpoints

2016-02-01 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, Right now it takes checkpoint_timeout till we start a checkpoint, and checkpoint_timeout + checkpoint_timeout * checkpoint_completion_target till we complete the first checkpoint after shutdown/forced checkpoints. That means a) that such checkpoint will often be bigger/more heavyweight than