On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know that, but with neither database activity or chekpoint, it doesn't > force anything. The fact is that there are checkpoints being executed every > checkpoint_timeout, and I don't understand why as if no WAL has been written > we should not care about passing the timeout.
You may want to look at that: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72...@wrigleys.postgresql.org And the patches on this thread to fix the checkpoint skip logic: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSNJVietAC=6kfkyv_45d...@mail.gmail.com#CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSNJVietAC=6kfkyv_45d...@mail.gmail.com My guess is that you are using 9.6 because wal_level = archive is equivalent to hot_standby, and the checkpoint skip logic is broken because of standby snapshots happening in the bgwriter... -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
