Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, 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 16:18:14
Message-ID: 39375fbe-cd08-3079-5f93-ee229e0108a5@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 11/2/21 12:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:55 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> 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 suspect that many users would be willing to incur
>> *way more* useless log messages than those settings would ever
>> generate if it meant that they could actually find problems when and
>> if they have them.
> I fully agree.

/metoo

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-11-02 16:31:47 Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-11-02 16:16:17 Re: archive modules