Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
| От | Daniel Farina |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAAZKuFbZ-seEN7f6FdxeDjTpN1txnBWKqd0ePdTw90mguv6p0Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> It's not as insane as introducing an archiving gap, PANICing and >> crashing, or running this hunk o junk I wrote >> http://github.com/fdr/ratchet >> > > Well certainly we shouldn't PANIC and crash but that is a simple fix. You > have a backup write location and start logging really loudly that you are > using it. If I told you there were some of us who would prefer to attenuate the rate that things get written rather than cancel or delay archiving for a long period of time, would that explain the framing of the problem? Or, is it that you understand that's what I want, but find the notion of such a operation hard to relate to? Or, am I misunderstanding your confusion? Or, none of the above?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: