Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(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 18:50:06
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY6as3+oxDTUFEOwC6fY0iSrXBDkczF3unOu2+W0KPQwA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 2:39 PM Nikolay Samokhvalov
<samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +1 for log_checkpoints = on
> and +1 for log_autovacuum_min_duration = 1m or so.

I almost proposed 1m rather than 10m, but then I thought the better of
it. I think it's unlikely that an autovacuum that takes 1 minute is
really the cause of some big problem you're having on your system.
Typical problem cases I see are hours or days long, so even 10 minutes
is pretty short. compared to what's likely to cause you real issues.
And at the same time 10 minutes is also high enough that you won't get
frequent log messages. 1 minute might not be: with 3 autovacuum
workers by default, that could print out a message every 20 seconds,
which does not feel worthwhile. I think a 10 minute threshold is much
more likely to only capture events that you actually care about.

Now I do think that a lot of people would benefit from a lower setting
than 10 minutes, just to get more information about what's happening.
But IMHO, making the default as low as 1 minute is a bit much.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2021-11-02 18:57:04 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-11-02 18:48:37 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?