Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7e9cace5-ef87-fad9-4498-80800dfce5f8@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after /
bgwriter_flush_after
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/25/2016 06:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >>> #checkpoint_flush_after = 0 # 0 disables, >>> # default is 256kB on linux, 0 otherwise > >>> I find this pretty confusing, because for all other GUCs in the file, the >>> commented-out value is the default one. In this case that would mean "0", >>> disabling the flushing. > >> Although I understand the issue, I'm not sure about -1 as a special value >> to mean the default. > > Agreed --- I think that's making things more confusing not less. > > What we do in some similar cases is put the burden on initdb to fill in > the correct value by modifying postgresql.conf.sample appropriately. > It seems like that could be done easily here too. And it'd be a > back-patchable fix. > I haven't realized initdb can do that. I agree that would be the best solution. -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: