Re: Report checkpoint progress in server logs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Report checkpoint progress in server logs
Date: 2021-12-29 15:40:59
Message-ID: 2031846.1640792459@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Therefore, reporting the checkpoint progress in the server logs, much
>> like [1], seems to be the best way IMO.

> I find progress reporting in the logfile to generally be a terrible
> way of doing things, and the fact that we do it for the startup
> process is/should be only because we have no other choice, not because
> it's the right choice.

I'm already pretty seriously unhappy about the log-spamming effects of
64da07c41 (default to log_checkpoints=on), and am willing to lay a side
bet that that gets reverted after we have some field experience with it.
This proposal seems far worse from that standpoint. Keep in mind that
our out-of-the-box logging configuration still doesn't have any log
rotation ability, which means that the noisier the server is in normal
operation, the sooner you fill your disk.

> I think the right choice to solve the *general* problem is the
> mentioned pg_stat_progress_checkpoints.

+1

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2021-12-29 16:30:15 Re: PublicationActions - use bit flags.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-12-29 15:28:22 Re: Foreign key joins revisited