Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Date: 2021-11-02 18:39:49
Message-ID: 202111021839.52q2z4o4adrb@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-Nov-02, Robert Haas wrote:

> I think shipping with log_checkpoints=on and
> log_autovacuum_min_duration=10m or so would be one of the best things
> we could possibly do to allow ex-post-facto troubleshooting of
> system-wide performance issues. The idea that users care more about
> the inconvenience of a handful of extra log messages than they do
> about being able to find problems when they have them matches no part
> of my experience.

I agree.

There are things that are much more likely to be unhelpful and
irritating -- say, enabling log_connections by default. Such messages
would be decididly useless for a large fraction of users and a burden.
That's not something you can claim about checkpoints and large-autovac
messages, though; not only because they are much less frequent, but also
because each line concisely represents a large amount of work.

--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad
de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre
un paso más allá de la lógica" (Irulan)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-11-02 18:48:37 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Previous Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2021-11-02 18:39:35 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?