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

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Date
Msg-id 87sl8etrsm.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch
List pgsql-patches
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:

> 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.

What exactly happens if a checkpoint takes so long that the next checkpoint
starts. Aside from it not actually helping is there much reason to avoid this
situation? Have we ever actually tested it?

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-patches by date:

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