Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date
Msg-id 42CD5344.1060707@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>Just to make my position perfectly clear: I don't want to see this
>>option shipped in 8.1.  It's reasonable to have it in there for now
>>as an aid to our performance investigations, but I don't see that it
>>has any value for production.
> 
> 
> Well, this is the first I am hearing that, and of course your position
> is just one vote.

True but your "feature" was added after feature freeze ;). I don't see
this as a good thing overall. We should be looking for a solution not a 
band-aid that if you tear it off will pull the skin.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC