On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:50 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> On 3/11/16 1:29 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >>> Unless anyone has objections I would like to mark this 'ready for >>> committer'. >> >> >> This patch is now ready for committer. > > Yes, thanks, I am cool with this version as well. I guess I should > have done what you just did at my last review to be honest.
This patch has been committed as b555ed8, and maps wal_level = "archive" to "hot_standby". As mentioned here, the condition to skip checkpoints when a system is idle is already broken for a couple of releases when wal_level = "hot_standby": http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqT5XdZYo0rub8hyBC9CiWxB6=tsg7ffm_qbr+q4l8z...@mail.gmail.com So now it is broken as for "archive". This has been already discussed on this thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031.3019.72...@wrigleys.postgresql.org And there is a patch as well: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/398/ As the bug discussed previously is now also a regression specific to 9.6, are there objections if I add an open item? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
