Re: Count backend self-sync calls

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Count backend self-sync calls
Date: 2010-11-15 00:27:50
Message-ID: 17874.1289780870@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It might be even better to mention that the reason why we couldn't
> forward the fsync request is that the fsync request queue is full.
> I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that. I thought about:

> fsync request queue is full

> But that seems not to answer the "so what" question. There is an
> example like this in the docs:

> could not forward fsync request (fsync request queue is full)

> ...but I'm not sure I like that.

Well, that example is meant to cover cases where you have to assemble a
couple of independently created phrases. In this case I'd suggest
could not forward fsync request because request queue is full
or, if you think there might sometime be a need to have a strerror
variant, ie
could not forward fsync request: %m
then maybe this would make the most sense:
could not forward fsync request: request queue is full

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-15 00:35:57 Re: pg_stat_bgwriter broken?
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-11-15 00:19:41 Re: Count backend self-sync calls