From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru |
Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Date: | 2016-11-21 06:44:08 |
Message-ID: | 20161121.154408.47398334.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:41:27 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAB7nPqSetnFjhGAB+tE2M68Vc_3BwbsEPe+dCMB8xnH0UYw3aA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > So, all my original concern were cleared.
>
> Cool. Perhaps this could be marked as ready for committer then?
^^;
> > The last one is
> > resetting by a checkpointer restart.. I'd like to remove that if
> > Andres agrees.
>
> Could you clarify this point? v18 makes sure that the last segment
> switch stays in shared memory so as we could still skip the activity
> of archive_timeout correctly.
I don't doubt that it works. (I don't comment on the comment:) My
concern is complexity. I don't think we wish to save almost no
harm behavior caused by a thing rarely happens. But, if you and
others on this thread don't mind the complexity, It's not worth
asserting myself more.
So, after a day waiting, I'll mark this as ready for committer
again.
reagards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-11-21 06:45:25 | Re: regression tests fails |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-11-21 06:38:24 | Re: Document how to set up TAP tests for Perl 5.8.8 |