Re: sort_mem statistics ...

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sort_mem statistics ...
Date: 2005-10-24 22:24:32
Message-ID: 1130192672.8300.1102.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 18:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking at the code, I notice that the messages are all emitted at level
> >> NOTICE. Perhaps that was not such a good idea --- it'd be pretty much
> >> in-your-face if it were on all the time. Does anyone think it'd be a
> >> good idea to emit the trace_sort messages at level LOG, instead?
>
> > If someone sets trace_sort, does it matter what level its emit'd at?
>
> Well, yeah. It depends whether you are thinking of the trace feature as
> being used interactively, or as something turned on to gather data over
> time in a production installation. In the second case you'd want the
> info to go to the postmaster log, but not want to see it dumped on your
> terminal all the time ...

Yes, please set this at LOG.

It will certainly provide many more data points for us to analyse.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-24 22:41:41 Re: New timezone data
Previous Message Seneca Cunningham 2005-10-24 22:17:04 memcpy SEGV on AIX 5.3