On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:13:19PM +1030, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Something that would address the issue would be to enforce a segment
>> switch after each checkpoint, but that's a high price to pay on mostly
>> idle systems with large WAL segments, which is not appealing either, and
>> this even if the checkpoint skip logic has been fixed in v10 with the
>> concept of "important" WAL records.
>
> If the system is mostly idle would it really matter that much?
We cannot assume that all archive commands support compression, even if
the rest of a forcibly switched segment is filled with zeros, so that
would cause extra I/O effort for such instances. I see quite a lot of
downsides to that.
--
Michael
