> I noticed a minor annoyance while testing: when the system is > completely idle, you get a forced segment switch every > checkpoint_timeout seconds, even though there is nothing > useful to log. The checkpoint code is smart enough not to do > a checkpoint if nothing has happened since the last one, and > the xlog switch code is smart enough not to do a switch if > nothing has happened since the last one ... but they aren't > talking to each other and so each one's change looks like > "something happened" > to the other one. I'm not sure how much trouble it's worth > taking to prevent this scenario, though. If you can't afford > a WAL file switch every five minutes, you probably shouldn't > be using archive_timeout anyway ...
Um, I would have thought practical timeouts would be rather more than 5 minutes than less. So this does seem like a problem to me :-( Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
