Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 18:48:37
Message-ID: 202111021848.wqfnvsp6kivc@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021-Nov-02, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:

> Back to checkpoint logging. With log_checkpoints = off, and high write
> activity with low max_wal_size we're already "spamming" the logs with
> lots of "checkpoints are occurring too frequently" – and this happens
> very often, any DBA running a restore process on Postgres with default
> max_wal_size (1GB, very low for modern DBs) saw it.
>
> Without details, this definitely looks like "spam"

Speaking of which -- I think we could easily remove checkpoint_warning
without any loss of useful functionality. Or, if we have to keep it, we
could change the way it works: when that condition triggers, then cause
regular "checkpoint started/complete" messages to occur (if they are
disabled), rather than the current "checkpoints are occurring too
frequently" message.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"E pur si muove" (Galileo Galilei)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-11-02 18:50:06 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-11-02 18:39:49 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?