On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
With some trivial checkpoints containing a small amount of data skipped now,
aren't there some cases where less WAL data will be written than before? In
that case, the user visible behavior here would be different. I'd
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
In cases where there are little or no writes to the WAL, checkpoints will be
skipped even if checkpoint_timeout has passed. At least one new WAL segment
must have been created before an automatic checkpoint occurs. The
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Reduce checkpoints and WAL traffic on low activity database server
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, it's no longer the maximum time between automatic checkpoints.
You're missing the point that it never was like that. I've not altered
the situation.
And it doesn't matter either, so I will ignore.
If you see a
On 11/02/2011 05:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, it's no longer the maximum time between automatic checkpoints.
You're missing the point that it never was like that. I've not altered
the situation.
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 11/02/2011 05:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
You're missing the point that it never was like that. I've not altered
the situation.
Robert's point is more that the existing docs are already broken; this
new patch can just increase how bad the drift
