Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT
Date
Msg-id X73h8ppliRgD6CDU@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: A few new options for CHECKPOINT  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 01:07:47AM +0000, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote:
> From: Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com>
>> It may be useful for backups taken with the "consistent snapshot"
>> approach.  As noted in the documentation [0], running CHECKPOINT
>> before taking the snapshot can reduce recovery time.  However, users
>> might wish to avoid the IO spike caused by an immediate checkpoint.
>>
>> [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/backup-file.html
>
> Ah, understood.  I agree that the slow or spread manual checkpoint is good to have.

I can see the use case for IMMEDIATE, but I fail to see the use cases
for WAIT and FORCE.  CHECKPOINT_FORCE is internally implied for the
end-of-recovery and shutdown checkpoints.  WAIT could be a dangerous
thing if disabled, as clients could pile up requests to the
checkpointer for no real purpose.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Dereference before NULL check (src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c)