| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT |
| Date: | 2020-12-07 02:22:01 |
| Message-ID: | X82RyaGPsfgp0aD5@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org) wrote:
>> You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
>> that is the case, please explain why don't we have
>> checkpoint_completion_target set to 0.9 by default? Should we change
>> that?
>
> Yes, I do think we should change that..
Agreed. FWIW, no idea for others, but it is one of those parameters I
keep telling to update after a default installation.
> In fact, I'd argue that we can
> probably get rid of checkpoint_completion_target entirely as an option.
> The main argument against that is that it could be annoying for people
> upgrading, but changing the default to 0.9 would definitely be an
> improvement.
Not sure there is enough ground to do that though.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2020-12-07 03:05:12 | Re: Logical archiving |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-12-07 02:03:30 | Re: Proposed patch for key managment |