| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add parameter jit_warn_above_fraction |
| Date: | 2022-03-29 13:38:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-AoXM=J5J===maHDY9O+Mbz-=Sfz-A23ZbiJoMKe_Rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:09 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The last remaining thing is whether logging at WARNING level is the correct
> choice. I'm personally fine with it, because the people who are going to use
> it will probably use the same approach as for log_min_duration_statements:
> enable it first with a high value, and check if that just lead to a massive log
> spam. If not, see if there's anything that needs attention and fix it,
> otherwise keep lowering it and keep going.
I think WARNING is fine. After all, the parameter is called
"jit_warn_above_fraction". Yeah, we could also rename the parameter,
but I think "jit_notice_above_fraction" would be harder to understand.
It feels very intuitive to just say "warn me if X thing happens" and I
don't see a reason why we shouldn't just do that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2022-03-29 13:53:30 | Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-29 13:31:42 | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |