Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2016-02-01 23:16:16 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> In general, I favor having limits reflect fundamental system limitations
>>> rather than paternalism.  Therefore, I would allow INT_MAX (68 years).

>> I generally incree with that attitude - I'm disinclined to go just that
>> high though. Going close to INT_MAX means having to care about overflow
>> in trivial computations, in a scenario we're unlikely to ever
>> test. Sure, we can use a debugger to adjust time or accellerate time
>> progress, but that's all unrealistic if we're honest.  So maybe go with
>> a year?

> Okay.

I've gotta go with the "paternalism" side of the argument here.  Suppose
you configure your system to checkpoint once a year --- what is going to
happen when the year is up?  Or when you try to shut it down?  You *will*
regret such a setting.

I don't think we should allow the checkpoint distances to be so large that
checkpoints don't happen in the normal course of events.  I'd be okay with
the max being a day, perhaps.
        regards, tom lane