| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 16:09:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=Nf8RPb4_i_MB1doPSzq5-ufGJPfT5yHdsiU8yCvZcMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:55 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think shipping with log_checkpoints=on and
> log_autovacuum_min_duration=10m or so would be one of the best things
> we could possibly do to allow ex-post-facto troubleshooting of
> system-wide performance issues. The idea that users care more about
> the inconvenience of a handful of extra log messages than they do
> about being able to find problems when they have them matches no part
> of my experience. I suspect that many users would be willing to incur
> *way more* useless log messages than those settings would ever
> generate if it meant that they could actually find problems when and
> if they have them.
I fully agree.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-02 16:10:07 | Re: archive modules |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-02 15:57:12 | Re: archive modules |