Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Instrument checkpoint sync calls
Date: 2010-11-22 01:46:29
Message-ID: AANLkTinccLNKDF8mCrfR59ky1BO32PmNL2MeumUC7Z4k@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So my task list is:
>
> 0) Rebase against the HEAD that just code related to this touched today
>
> 1) Assume that log_checkpoints is sufficient control over whether the timing
> overhead added is worth collecting, and therefore remove the half-baked idea
> of also wrapping with a compile-time option.
>
> 2) Have the sync summary returned upwards, so it can be put onto the same
> line as the rest of the rest of the log_checkpoint info.
>
> All seems reasonable to me.  Will rev a new patch by tomorrow.

Did this get eaten by the email goblin, or you're still working on it?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-22 02:16:05 Re: SQL/MED estimated time of arrival?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-22 01:39:02 Re: psql: Add \dL to show languages