Re: max_wal_size

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: max_wal_size
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwaTkOvZdSuhfKdYwtUS9ZkV+2b_49CSi2APnbLPkybLFg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: max_wal_size  (p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru)
Ответы Re: max_wal_size  (p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru)
Список pgsql-docs
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:21 AM <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

Now we have the glossary. According to the glossary, a checkpoint has two meanings.

The first meaning is that this is a point:
"A point in the WAL sequence at which it is guaranteed that the heap and index data files have been updated with all information from shared memory modified before that checkpoint; a checkpoint record is written and flushed to WAL to mark that point."

The second meaning is that this is an action (performed by checkpointer process or CP):
"A checkpoint is also the act of carrying out all the actions that are necessary to reach a checkpoint as defined above."

As I understand now, this is true when we talk about the checkpoint as a process.
"Maximum size to let the WAL grow to between a(b) and b(e), between b(b) and c(e), etc".

But this not true when we talk about the checkpoint as a point.
"Maximum size to let the WAL grow to between A and B".

My concerns that someone reading the description of the parameter may confuse the two meanings of checkpoint: as a point and as a process. After all, this happened to me.

Illuminating perspective.  The question for the documentation then becomes do we introduce the concept of a "checkpoint point/record" here to try and clear up a possible (but I'd argue rare) misunderstanding at the risk of complicating things for the reader who only has the process meaning in mind.  This is a tuning knob for the system and, as with the other two that reference "time", it almost by necessity deals with a process/verb interpretation of checkpoint, not the point/noun one.  While I'm quite familiar with the presence of the noun meaning it didn't even occur to me to frame the discussion in those terms.  As above, I'm not immediately convinced that that is a bad thing.

I don't know whether a change along those lines to the configuration reference page is useful or not - I wouldn't make one without a comprehensive re-read of the actual background/learning section of the documentation.  My gut instinct is that I just don't think the documentation can do this situation justice and that, as illustrated by this thread, there are better resources available for these less common situations.

That said adding something akin to your diagram and showing how the different parts relate to each other is definitely worth considering - though probably in the main section, not the reference section.

David J.

В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: max_wal_size
Следующее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: wal_init_zero and wal_recycle