| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |
| Date: | 2016-11-07 12:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQHSEj8HEH8K+uYtJe=3eKHbgtxT2S8TLZnhVVRbHf23w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I know that, but with neither database activity or chekpoint, it doesn't
> force anything. The fact is that there are checkpoints being executed every
> checkpoint_timeout, and I don't understand why as if no WAL has been written
> we should not care about passing the timeout.
You may want to look at that:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72930@wrigleys.postgresql.org
And the patches on this thread to fix the checkpoint skip logic:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSNJVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSNJVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA@mail.gmail.com
My guess is that you are using 9.6 because wal_level = archive is
equivalent to hot_standby, and the checkpoint skip logic is broken
because of standby snapshots happening in the bgwriter...
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom DalPozzo | 2016-11-07 12:32:36 | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-07 12:22:52 | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |