On 8 June 2012 09:22, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> I have a problem with promoting from hot-standby that exclusive > checkpointing retards completion of promotion. Agreed, we have that problem. > I depend on this and suppose we can omit it if latest checkpoint > has been taken so as to be able to do crash recovery thereafter. I don't see any reason to special case this. If a checkpoint has no work to do, then it will go very quickly. Why seek to speed it up even further? > This condition could be secured by my another patch for > checkpoint_segments on standby. More frequent checkpoints are very unlikely to secure a condition that no checkpoint at all is required at failover. Making a change that has a negative effect for everybody, in the hope of sometimes improving performance for something that is already fast doesn't seem a good trade off to me. Regrettably, the line of thought explained here does not seem useful to me. As you know, I was working on avoiding shutdown checkpoints completely myself. You are welcome to work on the approach Fujii and I discussed. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
