Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 08:02:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm still of the position that the default ought to be that a
> normally-functioning server generates no ongoing log output.
> Only people who have got Nagios watching their logs, or some
> such setup, are going to want anything different. And that is
> a minority use-case. There are going to be way more people
> bitching because their postmaster log overflowed their disk
> than there will be people who are happier because you made
> such output the default. (Don't forget that our default
> logging setup does not rotate the logs.)
>
> However, I'm prepared to accept a tight definition of what
> "normally-functioning" means. For instance, I don't have a
> problem with the idea of having log_autovacuum_min_duration
> defaulting to something positive, as long as it's fairly large.
> Then it's only going to emit anything if there is a situation
> that really needs attention.
>
> My objection to log_checkpoints=on is that that's going to produce
> a constant stream of messages even when *nothing at all* is wrong.
> Worse yet, a novice DBA would likely have a hard time understanding
> from those messages whether there was anything to worry about or not.
> If we could design a variant of log_checkpoints that would produce
> output only when the situation really needs attention, I'd be fine
> with enabling that by default.

I wonder if we need to follow the Unix model on this by having kernel
messages logged to a file via syslog (and potentially filtered), and
then have all recent activity logged into a ring buffer and visible via
something like dmesg.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.