From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |
Date: | 2017-10-01 22:43:31 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTov72XBs_0MkrSTxJv5LJ5S4gssx0x5ruSDzqX82MiyQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should
>> > fix this before 11. If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can
>> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems.
>>
>> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch
>> (adding Stephen in the loop here):
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+K2wCd2W-SCtpJDg7Xn3g@mail.gmail.com
>
> I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after
> all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's
> plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by
> this.
No real objections from here, actually.
>> Actually, shouldn't we make BgWriterStats a bit smarter? We could add
>> a counter for skipped checkpoints in v11 (too late for v10).
>
> Wouldn't hurt, but seems orthogonal.
Sure.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-01 22:52:12 | Re: eval_const_expresisions and ScalarArrayOpExpr |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-10-01 22:41:48 | Re: Logging idle checkpoints |