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

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT
Date
Msg-id 1812a4818ed13f8f3fc9aef99e999ae20e843392.camel@oopsware.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: A few new options for CHECKPOINT
List pgsql-hackers
Am Mittwoch, den 25.11.2020, 13:47 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
> 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.

Wouldn't it be more convenient to use "FAST" for immediate checkpoint,
defaulting to "FAST ON"? That would be along the parameter used in the
streaming protocol command BASE_BACKUP, where "FAST" disables lazy
checkpointing.

I agree that the other options don't seem reasonable for exposing to
SQL.


-- 
Thanks,
    Bernd





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: 方徳輝
Date:
Subject: Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning