Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.20.1611252232100.29326@lancre
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> What we do in some similar cases is put the burden on initdb to fill in
>> the correct value by modifying postgresql.conf.sample appropriately.
>> It seems like that could be done easily here too.  And it'd be a
>> back-patchable fix.
>
> I haven't realized initdb can do that. I agree that would be the best
> solution.

Indeed.

Maybe something like the following, or maybe it should include "bufmgr.h",
not sure.

--
Fabien.
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in parallel worker in ExecInitSubPlan
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: References to arbitrary database objects that are suitable for pg_dump