Re: [HACKERS] Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by trackingLSN progress

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> - Similarly I don't like the name "progress LSN" much. What does
>   "progress" really mean in that". Maybe "consistency LSN"?

Whoa.  -1 from me for "consistency LSN".  Consistency has to with
whether the cluster has recovered up to the minimum recovery point or
whatever -- that is -- questions like "am i going to run into torn
pages?" and "should I expect some heap tuples to maybe be missing
index tuples, or the other way around?".  What I think "progress LSN"
is getting at -- actually fairly well -- is whether we're getting
anything *important* done, not whether we are consistent.  I don't
mind changing the name, but not to consistency LSN.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company