On 2014-10-16 09:52:58 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 16 October 2014 05:26, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> >> I think manual checkpoints should flush everything.
> >>
> >> This is a valid use case.
> >>
> >> What other use case is there for a manual checkpoint?
> >
> > There's people using frequent manual checkpoints to keep performance
> > predictable. Unfortunately that actually can improve jitter quite
> > measurably.
>
> Hmm, more discussion required there it would seem.
Can we please decouple the discussion about an actual bug fix about the
discussion about behavioural changes? It really doesn't seem to be
helpful. The bug lingered for weeks because of this, and I really don't
want it to miss another minor release.
> > If we want to change this, fine, but we shouldn't sneak it into the back
> > branches, together with a correctness fix
>
> The bug lies in the default behaviour, which we must fix.
But the bug is unrelated to manual checkpoints. So I don't think this is
really related.
> I agree backpatching is awkward, though there may also be people who
> believe that a CHECKPOINT flushes everything, plus other related bugs
> may be lurking.
> Seems like we could backpatch this...
> CHECKPOINT [ALL (defult) | PERMANENT]
Why. This really is a new feature. If we want the new thing, can we
please treat it as any other feature?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services