On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 02:13:19PM +1030, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Something that would address the issue would be to enforce a segment >> switch after each checkpoint, but that's a high price to pay on mostly >> idle systems with large WAL segments, which is not appealing either, and >> this even if the checkpoint skip logic has been fixed in v10 with the >> concept of "important" WAL records. > > If the system is mostly idle would it really matter that much?
We cannot assume that all archive commands support compression, even if the rest of a forcibly switched segment is filled with zeros, so that would cause extra I/O effort for such instances. I see quite a lot of downsides to that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
