From: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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 12:32:36 |
Message-ID: | CAK77FCT2Rbs4MbTDa9R8RxXnMx4=o_S48_tbcL=Z_9=wa9Wmmg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I'm using 9.5.3 . I had read about that bug but I didn't know that
wal_level=archive is equivalent to hot_standby from this point of view! I
guess it's equivalent in 9.5.3 too.
Regards
Pupillo
2016-11-07 13:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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/CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN
> JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN
> JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)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 | Howard News | 2016-11-07 12:44:51 | Database Recovery from Corrupted Dump or Raw database table file. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-07 12:26:45 | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |