Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

From: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Date: 2011-09-02 19:00:55
Message-ID: 741b550a7543d7fc377b1981356251d1.squirrel@sq.gransy.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2 Září 2011, 20:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2011-09-02 at 17:13 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Sure, but I think the effort not to have a zillion of GUC makes sense.
>
> Well, I'll be the first to agree that reducing complexity in
> configuration and tuning settings is worth aiming for.
>
> But for logging, I'd rather have more settings, theoretically up to one
> for each possible message.  That doesn't increase complexity, as long as
> it has linear behavior.  It's debatable whether that means a new
> log_something parameter for each situation, or just a single parameter
> containing some kind of list, or something else, but that's a different
> problem.

OK, good point. The effort to make this work without a GUC obviously is a
dead end, and the idea to turn log_checkpoints into an enum seems
reasonable.

Tomas


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-02 19:04:28
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-09-02 18:58:46
Subject: Re: symbol mismatches on minor version upgrades

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group