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: Currently it means we'll try to finish a checkp
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
> > (1-checkpoint_completion_target) * timeout before
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.
>
> That means a) that su
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 t