From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Date: | 2015-11-06 16:42:56 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobZ8J4zW-j4Kh6O+H=GceCDmANvRyZ09K69BJG8mJf_vw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have as well thought a bit about adding a space-related constraint
> on the standby snapshot generated by the bgwriter, so as to not rely
> entirely on the interval of 15s. I finished with the attached that
> uses a check based on CheckPointSegments / 8 to be sure that at least
> this number of segments has been generated since the last checkpoint
> before logging a new snapshot. I guess that's less brittle than the
> last patch. Thoughts?
I can't see why that would be a good idea. My understanding is that
the logical decoding code needs to get those messages pretty
regularly, and I don't see why that need would be reduced on systems
where CheckPointSegments is large.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-11-06 16:52:35 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-06 16:42:54 | Re: BUG #13757: Able to write to postgres even when the main process has been killed |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-06 16:45:38 | Re: patch for geqo tweaks |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-06 16:41:30 | Re: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c |