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

Re: Checkpoint logging, revised patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint logging, revised patch
Date: 2007-06-30 19:20:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> My original patch converted the buffers written to MB.

> I don't think we currently use MB in any other log messages. If we go 
> down that route, we need to consider switching to MB everywhere.

I left this as submitted by Heikki, mainly because the percentage-of-
shared-buffers bit seemed useful to me and it would make less sense IMHO
if attached to a number of megabytes instead of a number of buffers.
But it's a judgment call for sure.  Any other opinions out there?

>> 1) Log every time a new WAL file was created, which ties into the recent 
>> discussion here that being a possible performance issue.

> This could be useful.

Done; I put in two DEBUG2 messages, one at start and one at completion
of the file-creation.

>> 2) Add a lower-level DEBUG statement when autovaccum was finished,

> Did you check out log_autovacuum? Doesn't it do what you need?

I concur that log_autovacuum seems to cover this already.

>> 3) I fixed a line in postmaster.c so it formatted fork PIDsthe same way 
>> most other log statements do; most statements report it as (PID %d) and 
>> the difference in this form seemed undesirable

> Hmm. Since it's DEBUG2 I don't care much either way. The changed message 
> looks inconsistent to me, since socket is printed differently.

No strong opinion, but I left it as-is for the moment in case Alvaro is
about to commit something in postmaster.c (I suspect the double-shutdown
business is a bug in there).  Don't want to cause merge problems for him
just for cosmetic message cleanup.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2007-07-01 15:49:50
Subject: dblink connection security
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-06-30 19:12:45
Subject: Re: Checkpoint logging, revised patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group