From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>
Cc: tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:17:43 -0500
Message-ID: <20201207191742.GN16415@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285eb02-3340-7728-9f62-1a4365eda850@enterprisedb.com>
References: <20201207175329.GM16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
<5285eb02-3340-7728-9f62-1a4365eda850@enterprisedb.com>
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On 2020-12-07 18:53, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> >>On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>>* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> >>>>You keep making this statement, and I don't necessarily disagree, but if
> >>>>that is the case, please explain why don't we have
> >>>>checkpoint_completion_target set to 0.9 by default? Should we change
> >>>>that?
> >>>
> >>>Yes, I do think we should change that..
> >>
> >>Agreed. FWIW, no idea for others, but it is one of those parameters I
> >>keep telling to update after a default installation.
> >
> >Concretely, attached is a patch which changes the default and updates
> >the documentation accordingly.
>
> I agree with considering this change, but I wonder why the value 0.9. Why
> not, say, 0.95, 0.99, or 1.0?
The documentation (which my patch updates to match the new default)
covers this pretty well here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-configuration.html
"Although checkpoint_completion_target can be set as high as 1.0, it is
best to keep it less than that (perhaps 0.9 at most) since checkpoints
include some other activities besides writing dirty buffers. A setting
of 1.0 is quite likely to result in checkpoints not being completed on
time, which would result in performance loss due to unexpected variation
in the number of WAL segments needed."
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, bossartn@amazon.com, laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, mailings@oopsware.de, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target
In-Reply-To: <20201207191742.GN16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox