| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2021-10-31 19:43:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1014155.1635709437@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-10-31 10:59:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No DBA would be likely to consider it as anything but log spam.
> I don't agree at all. No postgres instance should be run without
> log_checkpoints enabled. Performance is poor if checkpoints are
> triggered by anything but time, and that can only be diagnosed if
> log_checkpoints is on.
This is complete nonsense. If we think that's a generic problem, we
should be fixing the problem (ie, making the checkpointer smarter);
not expecting that DBAs will monitor their logs for an undocumented
issue. The number of installations where that would actually happen
is epsilon compared to the number where it won't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-10-31 20:00:49 | Re: Time to drop plpython2? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-31 19:38:15 | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |