Re: regular logging of checkpoint progress

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
> Taking into account Noah's and Greg's "Displaying accumulated autovacuum
> cost" patch is also sending to logs, do we all now agree that this is proper
> way?

My general impression of the thread is that nobody really wants to
reject the patch (because we all know that we need a lot more logging
options than we currently have) but at the same time nobody seems
quite certain why someone would want to look at this precise bit of
information.

I mean, it's already possible to get log messages at the start and end
of a checkpoint, so there's no problem with finding out whether a
checkpoint was in progress at the time something was slow. In fact,
you can even figure out which phase of the checkpoint you were in.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company