Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Date
Msg-id 46816582.7060900@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch  (Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>)
Responses Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2007, at 13:49 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> Maximum is 0.9, to leave some headroom for fsync and any other things
>> that need to happen during a checkpoint.
>
> I think it might be more user-friendly to make the maximum 1 (meaning as
> much smoothing as you could possibly get) and internally reserve a
> certain amount off for whatever headroom might be required. It's more
> common for users to see a value range from 0 to 1 rather than 0 to 0.9.

It would then be counter-intuitive if you set it to 1.0, and see that
your checkpoints consistently take 90% of the checkpoint interval.

We could just allow any value up to 1.0, and note in the docs that you
should leave some headroom, unless you don't mind starting the next
checkpoint a bit late. That actually sounds pretty good.

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: pg_ctl -w (wait) option on Windows