Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:17:43 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>,
	"tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target
Message-ID: <20201207191742.GN16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20201207175329.GM16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <5285eb02-3340-7728-9f62-1a4365eda850@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GLpciz/wrq5TjYnG"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5285eb02-3340-7728-9f62-1a4365eda850@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--GLpciz/wrq5TjYnG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
>=20
> 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

--GLpciz/wrq5TjYnG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=WInt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--GLpciz/wrq5TjYnG--