Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Rather than deplore that you can't expedite the checkpoint, why don't we
> just make it possible?
+1
> The first question is what the default behavior should be? We've seen
> enough complaints and I've been bitten by that myself during development
> of other stuff often enough that I think we should change the default to
> immediate. From backwards-compatibility point of view, we shouldn't
> change the default, but then again an immediate checkpoint was what you
> got before 8.3.
I think we shouldn't change the default. Which puts a hole in your
suggestion for function naming. But then again, I like the extra
argument better anyway ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
