Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Date: 2011-09-02 10:45:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:01, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
> On 2 Září 2011, 9:47, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 21:59, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
>>> I've prepared a significantly simplified version of the patch. The two
>>> main changes are
>>> (a) it does not update the pg_stat_bgwriter anymore, it just prints an
>>> info to the server log
>>> (b) a new GUC is not required, it's driven by the log_checkpoints
>> The comment still refers to the checkpoint_update_limit.
> OK, I'll fix that.
>>> This version will log at least 10 'checkpoint status' lines (at 10%,
>>> 20%,
>>> 30%, ...) and whenever 5 seconds since the last log elapses. The time is
>>> not checked for each buffer but for 128 buffers.
>>> So if the checkpoint is very slow, you'll get a message every 5 seconds,
>>> if it's fast you'll get 10 messages.
>> I would personally find this very annoying. If I read it correctly,
>> anybody with a database with no problem at all but that has
>> log_checkpoints on suddenly got at least 10 times as many messages? I
>> generally try to advise my clients to *not* log excessively because
>> then they will end up not bothering to read the logs...
> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the
> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I guess.

I guess if it's at a DEBUG level it won't annoy anybody who doesn't
need it. Not sure if NOTICE is low enough..

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen SchönigDate: 2011-09-02 12:01:51
Subject: Re: help with plug-in function for additional (partition/shard) visibility checks
Previous:From: Gabriele BartoliniDate: 2011-09-02 10:02:03
Subject: Italian PGDay 2011, Call for papers is now open

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group