Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-04 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-02-03 15:07:12 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 2/2/16 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >Now, you could also set such configuration settings in > >a situation where it will not work out well. But that is true of most > >configuration settings. By that argument we should probably raise the

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-04 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to >> even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have >> upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general. > > In general, I favor having

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-03 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/2/16 10:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Now, you could also set such configuration settings in a situation where it will not work out well. But that is true of most configuration settings. Yeah, if we're going to start playing parent then I think the first thing to do is remove the fsync GUC.

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-03 Thread David Steele
On 2/2/16 11:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I've gotta go with the "paternalism" side of the argument here. Suppose >> you configure your system to checkpoint once a year --- what is going to >> happen when the year is up? Or

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to > > > even go to as high as a week or so.

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I've gotta go with the "paternalism" side of the argument here. Suppose > you configure your system to checkpoint once a year --- what is going to > happen when the year is up? Or when you try to shut it down? You *will* >

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On 2 February 2016 at 05:54, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > >> is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout >

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to > > even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have > > upper/lower limits that aren't a good

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-02-02 11:37:15 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > If people wish to turn off crash recovery, they can already set fsync=off. > I don't wish to see us support a setting that causes problems for people > that don't understand what checkpoints are and why everybody needs them. I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> > > I'm not sure what'd actually be a

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-02 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch writes: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote: >>> In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations >>> rather than paternalism. Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-01 Thread Euler Taveira
On 01-02-2016 21:13, Andres Freund wrote: > is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout > limit? > AFAICS the only reason is to run recover quickly. This setting is the same value since day 1. > A high timeout has the advantage that the total amount of full page >

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-01 Thread Jim Nasby
On 2/1/16 6:13 PM, Andres Freund wrote: I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to even go to as high as a week or so. A lot of our settings have upper/lower limits that aren't a good idea in general. The only reason I can see for the 1 hour limit is to try and

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: >> is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout >> limit? > > Not that I know, and it is inconvenient. > >> I'm not sure what'd actually

Re: [HACKERS] Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

2016-02-01 Thread Noah Misch
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:13:20AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > is there any reason for the rather arbitrary and low checkpoint_timeout > limit? Not that I know, and it is inconvenient. > I'm not sure what'd actually be a good upper limit. I'd be inclined to > even go to as high as a week or