Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2011-09-02 at 17:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that
>> drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) or
>> detailed log (with a lower log level).
> If a user is forced to change the log level to get at one particular
> piece of information, they will then also turn on countless other log
> events on that level, which is annoying.
Yeah, if we're going to have this at all, some form of GUC control over
it seems necessary. I'm still disturbed by the verbosity of the
proposed output though. Couldn't we collapse the information into a
single log entry per checkpoint cycle? Perhaps that would be sufficient
to just let the log_checkpoints setting be used as-is.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-02 18:52:25|
|Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-09-02 18:46:27|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress|