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

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch
Date
Msg-id BF27941E-B9BA-47EA-8310-0433CE61618A@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch
List pgsql-patches
On Jun 17, 2007, at 4:39 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> pg_start_backup() should be a normal checkpoint I think. No need for
>>> backup to be an intrusive process.
>>
>> Good point. A spread out checkpoint can take a long time to finish,
>> though. Is there risk for running into a timeout or something if it
>> takes say 10 minutes for a call to pg_start_backup to finish?
>
> That would be annoying, but the alternative is for backups to
> seriously
> effect performance, which would defeat the object of the HOT backup.
> It's not like its immediate right now, so we'd probably be moving from
> 2-3 mins to 10 mins in your example. Most people are expecting their
> backups to take a long time anyway, so thats OK.

We should document it, though; otherwise I can see a bunch of
confused users wondering why pg_start_backup takes so long. Remember
that with longer checkpoints, the odds of them calling
pg_start_backup during one and having to wait are much greater.
--
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock'
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: boolean <=> text explicit casts