Re: trace_recovery_messages

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: trace_recovery_messages
Date: 2010-06-18 01:20:39
Message-ID: AANLkTilhOhiC3p5SOQz0R2XZrtGNBImxaRX7BRKq18a4@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
>> the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?
>
> No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.
>
>> Currently it's always
>> available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.
>
> Where?  I don't see very many messages that would actually get emitted
> at the default setting of the parameter.

Yes. I was just concerned that frequent calls themselves may increase
the overhead.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takahiro Itagaki 2010-06-18 01:34:23 Re: Partitioning syntax
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2010-06-18 00:23:40 Re: hstore ==> and deprecate =>