Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle

Robert Haas  writes:
> I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale, though.  I mean, if
> very little has happened since the last checkpoint, then the
> checkpoint will be very cheap.  In the totally degenerate case Fujii
> Masao is reporting, where absolutely nothing has happened, it should
> be basically free.  We'll loop through a whole bunch of things, decide
> there's nothing to fsync, and call it a day.

I think the point is that a totally idle database should not continue to
emit WAL, not even at a slow rate.  There are also power-consumption
objections to allowing the checkpoint process to fire up to no purpose.

The larger issue is that we should not only be concerned with optimizing
for high load.  Doing nothing when there's nothing to be done is an
important part of good data-center citizenship.  See also the ongoing
work to avoid unnecessary process wakeups.
		regards, tom lane