Re: trace_recovery_messages

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: trace_recovery_messages
Date: 2010-06-18 08:35:37
Message-ID: 1276850137.23257.81349.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 10:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
> >> the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?
> >
> > No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.
> >
> >> Currently it's always
> >> available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.
> >
> > Where? I don't see very many messages that would actually get emitted
> > at the default setting of the parameter.
>
> Yes. I was just concerned that frequent calls themselves may increase
> the overhead.

Please share your oprofile output so we can see the problem.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-06-18 08:48:37 Re: Explicit psqlrc
Previous Message Jean-Baptiste Quenot 2010-06-18 08:31:29 Re: pg_dump does not honor namespaces when functions are used in index