Re: [HACKERS] Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by trackingLSN progress

On 12/21/16 4:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-21 16:35:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:

>> What I think "progress LSN"
>> is getting at -- actually fairly well -- is whether we're getting
>> anything *important* done, not whether we are consistent.  I don't
>> mind changing the name, but not to consistency LSN.
>
> Well, progress could just as well be replay. Or the actual insertion
> point. Or up to where we've written out. Or synced out. Or
> replicated....
>
> Open to other suggestions - I'm not really happy with consistency LSN,
> but definitely unhappy with progress LSN.

MinConsistencyLSN?

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net