I'm using 9.5.3 . I had read about that bug but I didn't know that wal_level=archive is equivalent to hot_standby from this point of view! I guess it's equivalent in 9.5.3 too.
Regards
Pupillo
2016-11-07 13:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I know that, but with neither database activity or chekpoint, it doesn't
> force anything. The fact is that there are checkpoints being executed every
> checkpoint_timeout, and I don't understand why as if no WAL has been written
> we should not care about passing the timeout.
You may want to look at that:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20151016203031. 3019.72930@wrigleys. postgresql.org
And the patches on this thread to fix the checkpoint skip logic:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA@mail. gmail.com# CAB7nPqQcPqxEM3S735Bd2RzApNqSN JVietAC=6kfkYv_45dKwA@mail. gmail.com
My guess is that you are using 9.6 because wal_level = archive is
equivalent to hot_standby, and the checkpoint skip logic is broken
because of standby snapshots happening in the bgwriter...
--
Michael
