Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
Date: 2016-11-25 17:10:34
Message-ID: 27423.1480093834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> #checkpoint_flush_after = 0 # 0 disables,
>> # default is 256kB on linux, 0 otherwise

>> I find this pretty confusing, because for all other GUCs in the file, the
>> commented-out value is the default one. In this case that would mean "0",
>> disabling the flushing.

> Although I understand the issue, I'm not sure about -1 as a special value
> to mean the default.

Agreed --- I think that's making things more confusing not less.

What we do in some similar cases is put the burden on initdb to fill in
the correct value by modifying postgresql.conf.sample appropriately.
It seems like that could be done easily here too. And it'd be a
back-patchable fix.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2016-11-25 17:30:22 Re: make default TABLESPACE belong to target table.
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-11-25 16:24:37 Re: proposal: session server side variables