On 2017-06-28 06:04:23 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I'm far from convinced by this. By now WAL replay with checkpointer, > > bgwriter, etc. active is actually *more* tested than the cases without > > it. The likelihood of bugs is higher in the less frequently exercised > > paths, and given that replication exercises the situation with all those > > processes active on a continuous basis, I'm fairly unconvinced by your > > argument. > > Crash recovery is the last thing where failures should never happen. > Don't you think that it should remain simple as it has been designed > originally? It seems to me that the argument for keeping things simple > has higher priority than performance in being able to reconnect by > delaying the checkpoint.
You seem to completely argue besides my point that the replication path is *more* robust by now? And there's plenty scenarios where a faster startup is quite crucial for performance. The difference between an immediate shutdown + recovery without checkpoint to a fast shutdown can be very large, and that matters a lot for faster postgres updates etc. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
