On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:50 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>
>>> Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for
>>> committer'.
>>
>>
>> This patch is now ready for committer.
>
> Yes, thanks, I am cool with this version as well. I guess I should
> have done what you just did at my last review to be honest.
This patch has been committed as b555ed8, and maps wal_level =
"archive" to "hot_standby". As mentioned here, the condition to skip
checkpoints when a system is idle is already broken for a couple of
releases when wal_level = "hot_standby":
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqT5XdZYo0rub8hyBC9CiWxB6=TSG7ffm_QBR+Q4L8ZFGg@mail.gmail.com
So now it is broken as for "archive".
This has been already discussed on this thread:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72930@wrigleys.postgresql.org
And there is a patch as well:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/398/
As the bug discussed previously is now also a regression specific to
9.6, are there objections if I add an open item?
--
Michael
