Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: 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 18:46:27
Message-ID: 1314989188.11695.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-09-02 18:48:24 Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-09-02 18:43:16 Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress