On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > In cases where there are little or no writes to the WAL, checkpoints will be > skipped even if checkpoint_timeout has passed. At least one new WAL segment > must have been created before an automatic checkpoint occurs. The time > between checkpoints and when new WAL segments are created are not related in > any other way. If file-based WAL shipping is being used and you want to > bound how often files are sent to standby server, to reduce potential data > loss you should adjust archive_timeout parameter rather than the checkpoint > ones.
I think this is good, although "where there are little or no writes to the WAL" seems a bit awkward to me - how about "where little or no WAL has been written"? I would probably delete "to reduce potential data loss" from the last sentence, since I think that sentence has a few too many clauses to be easily parseable. Should we also put a similar sentence into the documentation for checkpoint_timeout? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
