| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |
| Date: | 2017-10-01 22:41:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20171001224148.3zcqhrnxfq7eb4py@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should
> > fix this before 11. If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can
> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems.
>
> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch
> (adding Stephen in the loop here):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+K2wCd2W-SCtpJDg7Xn3g@mail.gmail.com
I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after
all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's
plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by
this.
> Actually, shouldn't we make BgWriterStats a bit smarter? We could add
> a counter for skipped checkpoints in v11 (too late for v10).
Wouldn't hurt, but seems orthogonal.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-01 22:43:31 | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-01 22:39:18 | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |