Greetings,
* Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> On 3/23/21, 12:19 PM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> > * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> > > LGTM. I just have a few small wording suggestions.
> >
> > Agreed, those looked like good suggestions and so I've incorporated
> > the
On 3/23/21, 12:19 PM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> > LGTM. I just have a few small wording suggestions.
>
> Agreed, those looked like good suggestions and so I've incorporated
> them.
>
> Updated patch attached.
Looks good!
Nathan
Greetings,
* Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote:
> LGTM. I just have a few small wording suggestions.
Agreed, those looked like good suggestions and so I've incorporated
them.
Updated patch attached.
Thanks!
Stephen
From 40a529bc0a129e90c9917c1a3df2297ac7f2e073 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 20
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:24:07PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> LGTM. I just have a few small wording suggestions.
>
> +completion overhead. Reducing this parameter is not recommended as
> that
> +causes the I/O from the checkpoint to have to complete faster,
> resulting
> +
LGTM. I just have a few small wording suggestions.
+completion overhead. Reducing this parameter is not recommended as
that
+causes the I/O from the checkpoint to have to complete faster,
resulting
+in a higher I/O rate, while then having a period of less I/O between
t
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:11:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Unless there's anything further on this, I'll plan to commit it tomorrow
> > or Wednesday.
>
> Cool, looks fine to me.
>
> This version of the patch has forgotten to upd
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:11:00PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Unless there's anything further on this, I'll plan to commit it tomorrow
> or Wednesday.
Cool, looks fine to me.
This version of the patch has forgotten to update one spot:
src/backend/postmaster/checkpointer.c:double CheckPointComp
Greetings,
* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> I had a look at the patch and the change and new documentation seem sensible
> to me.
Thanks!
> I think this phrase may be a bit too idiomatic:
>
> +consistent I/O load while also leaving some slop for checkpoint
>
> Perhaps just
On 1/19/21 2:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost writes:
Any further comments or thoughts on this one?
This:
+total time between checkpoints. The default is 0.9, which spreads the
+checkpoint across the entire checkpoint timeout
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 03:47, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost writes:
>> > Any further comments or thoughts on this one?
>>
>> This:
>>
>> +total time between checkpoints. The default is 0.9, which spreads
>> the
>> +
Stephen Frost writes:
> In passing, I noticed that we have a lot of documentation like:
> This parameter can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the
> server command line.
> ... which hasn't been true since the introduction of ALTER SYSTEM.
Well, it's still true if you understand "the
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Any further comments or thoughts on this one?
>
> This:
>
> +total time between checkpoints. The default is 0.9, which spreads the
> +checkpoint across the entire checkpoint timeout period of time,
>
Stephen Frost writes:
> Any further comments or thoughts on this one?
This:
+total time between checkpoints. The default is 0.9, which spreads the
+checkpoint across the entire checkpoint timeout period of time,
is confusing because 0.9 is obviously not 1.0; people will wonder
w
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 2021-01-13 23:10, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>Yes, I agree, and am involved in that thread as well- currently waiting
> >>feedback from others about the proposed approach.
> >I've tried to push that forward. I'm happy to u
On 2021-01-13 23:10, Stephen Frost wrote:
Yes, I agree, and am involved in that thread as well- currently waiting
feedback from others about the proposed approach.
I've tried to push that forward. I'm happy to update this patch once
we've got agreement to move forward on that, to wit, adding to
Hi,
On 2021-01-15 23:05:02 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah. The flushing probably makes that mostly unnecessary, but we still
> allow disabling that. I'm not really convinced replacing it with a
> compile-time #define is a good idea, exactly because it can't be changed
> if needed.
It's also no
On 1/15/21 10:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-12-08 12:41:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I kind of like the idea of getting rid of it completely.
>> Is there really ever a good reason to set it to something different
>> than that? If not, well, we have too many GUCs already, and
Hi,
On 2020-12-08 12:41:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I kind of like the idea of getting rid of it completely.
> Is there really ever a good reason to set it to something different
> than that? If not, well, we have too many GUCs already, and each
> of them carries nonzero performance, docume
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:16:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Attached is a patch to change it from a GUC to a compile-time #define
> which is set to 0.9, with accompanying documentation updates.
All the references to checkpoint_target_completion are removed (except
for bgwriter.h as per the pa
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> > On 2020-Dec-10, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:29 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > > > +1 to setting check
Greetings,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> On 2020-Dec-10, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:29 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > > +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
> > >
> >
Howdy,
On 2020-Dec-10, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:29 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > > +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
> >
> > +1 for changing the default or getting rid of it, as Tom sugges
Greetings,
* Laurenz Albe (laurenz.a...@cybertec.at) wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:29 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
>
> +1 for changing the default or getting rid of it, as Tom suggested.
Attached is a patch to change it from
On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 17:29 +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
+1 for changing the default or getting rid of it, as Tom suggested.
While we are at it, could we change the default of "log_lock_waits" to "on"?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> > On 12/7/20, 9:53 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> >> Concretely, attached is a patch which changes the default and updates
> >> the documentation accordingly.
>
> > +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by de
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 12/7/20, 9:53 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
>> Concretely, attached is a patch which changes the default and updates
>> the documentation accordingly.
> +1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
FWIW, I kind of like the idea of getting rid of it c
On 12/7/20, 9:53 AM, "Stephen Frost" wrote:
> Concretely, attached is a patch which changes the default and updates
> the documentation accordingly.
+1 to setting checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9 by default.
Nathan
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 2020-12-07 18:53, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> >>On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>>* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> You
On 2020-12-07 18:53, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
that is the case, p
29 matches
Mail list logo
