Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:38:15 +0100
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every
 archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby
Message-ID: <20160118133815.GT10941@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CAB7nPqRB7OU4N7B0otR3BY+pQ0PU5w9QxUy6D_q4YXiAXiB=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151104103351.GB29170@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CAB7nPqT81wuVzo1-rOFXTcagLviyX_rhqDPb1XkhfnQ9tTiPRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRUTRQvBYiDY-rC04+FOg0vUKCOAvAFZViw7fw8CnJjWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobZ8J4zW-j4Kh6O+H=GceCDmANvRyZ09K69BJG8mJf_vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151106165235.GB21749@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CAB7nPqQDZkhjZeR4f1Bfn=rLHD_auD57ZLUs10s=CwuCSybENQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRLAFOe7=rEFJwruxWwmwaw=8k7jz9z_1x_V1v2uUUvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTpb10+oGr=b5Wa7c87xN+Bnk0a+_ShyxcYf+PHd-UGAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRhuYuVjmEEAR=iVBD-rWu42jb0+2gsm4KHJjpC8Zwoww@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqRhuYuVjmEEAR=iVBD-rWu42jb0+2gsm4KHJjpC8Zwoww@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015-12-21 16:26:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Speaking of which, this patch was registered in this CF, I am moving
> > it to the next as a bug fix.
> 
> I found a stupid bug in my previous patch: when issuing XLOG_SWITCH it
> is possible that the return LSN pointer is on the new segment that has
> been forcibly archived if RequestXLogSwitch is called multiple times
> and that subsequent calls are not necessary. Patch updated.

I find this patch rather unsatisfactory. Yes, it kinda solves the
problem of archive timeout, but it leaves the bigger and longer standing
problems of unneccessary checkpoints with wal_level=hs in place. It's
also somewhat fragile in my opinion.

I think we rather want a per backend (or perhaps per wal insertion lock)
flag that says 'last relevant record inserted at', and a way to not set
that during insertion. Then during a checkpoint or the relevant bgwriter
code, we look wether anything relevant happened in any backend since the
last time we performed a checkpoint/logged a running xacts snapshot.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers