Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMK_5LAvqQRnwj6Q_4Oo52jCSkR=CZ_JS4=AJaRgvaCOmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7 January 2013 13:33, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:

>> If we skip the WAL record in the way you suggest, we'd be unable to
>> start quickly in some cases.
>
> If there are any operations happened which have generated WAL, then on next
> checkpoint interval the checkpoint operation should happen.
> Which cases will it not able to start quickly?

The case where we do lots of work but momentarily we weren't doing
anything when we took the snapshot.

The absence of write transactions at one specific moment gives no
indication of behaviour at other points across the whole checkpoint
period.

If you make the correct test, I'd be more inclined to accept the premise.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c