| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_b1HjmjB=SDt6tqa17w5-Loa8mcnJ1e73PtJTvmS_d_mQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le mer. 3 nov. 2021 à 00:18, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> a écrit :
>
> On 11/2/21 12:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> /metoo
>
same here
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-02 16:39:48 | Re: archive modules |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2021-11-02 16:34:30 | make tuplestore helper function |