On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 07:11:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> And, er, actually, I was thinking again about the case where a user >> wants to disable full_page_writes temporarily to do some bulk load and >> then re-enable it. With the patch proposed to actually update the FPW >> effect at checkpoint time, then a user would need to issue a manual >> checkpoint after updating the configuration and reloading, which may >> create more I/O than he'd want to pay for, then a second checkpoint >> would need to be issued after the configuration comes back again. > > Why a second checkpoint? One checkpoint either manual or automatic > should be enough to make the setting effective.
I was thinking about cases where users have say hourly cron jobs in charge of doing some maintenance of update cleanups, where they would need to be sure that full_page_writes are back online after doing the bulk-load. In this case an extra checkpoint would be necessary to make the parameter update effective. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
