Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+jJWDcmrtFuJ2s-JqPJZ_sAzPsxi8uOwgH8_OAzV_NnnuQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server
Список pgsql-committers
Дерево обсуждения
On 6 April 2016 at 09:45, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2016-04-06 09:18:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that
> does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to
> allow you to backpatch a solution.

But it doesn't. It doesn't solve the longstanding problem of checkpoints
needlessly being repeated due to standby snapshots.

<sigh> I can't see why you say this. I am willing to listen, but this appears to be wrong.
 
It doesn't fix the
issue for for wal_level=logical.

What issue is that? Previously you said it must not skip it at all for logical.
 
We now log more WAL with
XLogArchiveTimeout > 0 than without.

And the problem with that is what?
 
The other was an architectural fix, this is a selectively applied
bandaid.

It was an attempt at an architectural fix, which went wrong by being too much code and too invasive for such a minor issue.

I'm not much concerned with what emotive language you choose to support your arguments, but I am concerned about clear, maintainable code and I object to the previous patch.

There are other problems worthy of our attention and I will attend to those now.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: