| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot |
| Date: | 2013-01-07 13:44:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMK_5LAvqQRnwj6Q_4Oo52jCSkR=CZ_JS4=AJaRgvaCOmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 January 2013 13:33, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> If we skip the WAL record in the way you suggest, we'd be unable to
>> start quickly in some cases.
>
> If there are any operations happened which have generated WAL, then on next
> checkpoint interval the checkpoint operation should happen.
> Which cases will it not able to start quickly?
The case where we do lots of work but momentarily we weren't doing
anything when we took the snapshot.
The absence of write transactions at one specific moment gives no
indication of behaviour at other points across the whole checkpoint
period.
If you make the correct test, I'd be more inclined to accept the premise.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-01-07 13:44:47 | Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-01-07 13:42:32 | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |