From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove lower limit on checkpoint_timeout? |
Date: | 2016-12-23 23:12:50 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT-BS-TmbdK5yyU61GJvs_ySUbsmUgjV2ShTY9G7qRRPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 6:02 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> On 12/23/16 10:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> While it's not a particularly good idea to set it to 1s on a production
>>> system, I don't see why we need to prevent that. It's not like 30s is
>>> likely to be a good idea either.
>>
>>> Hence I'd like to set the lower limit to 1s.
>>
>> OK, but the documentation for it needs some work if you're going to
>> do that. It only warns against making the timeout too large, not
>> too small.
>
> +1 for the lower limit and the docs.
I wish we were more loose regarding the limits of some parameters, see
for example this recent thread about bgwriter ones:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f6e58a22-030b-eb8a-5457-f62fb08d701c@BlueTreble.com
So +1 for lowering checkpoint_timeout, lower values are stupid for
production systems, but not for developers.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-23 23:15:04 | Re: Time to retire Windows XP buildfarm host? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-12-23 22:48:42 | Re: Time to retire Windows XP buildfarm host? |