Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, final patch

"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:

> We could just allow any value up to 1.0, and note in the docs that you should
> leave some headroom, unless you don't mind starting the next checkpoint a bit
> late. That actually sounds pretty good.

What exactly happens if a checkpoint takes so long that the next checkpoint
starts. Aside from it not actually helping is there much reason to avoid this
situation? Have we ever actually tested it?

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com