| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 21:35:34 |
| Message-ID: | 5c03f610-fe95-fe94-5dfa-3d107b18b6e9@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/31/21 10:24 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
> To put another option on the table: maybe a compromise could be to log
> xlog checkpoints unconditionally, and the (checkpoint_timeout) time ones
> only if log_checkpoints are set (maybe with some exponential backoff to
> avoid log spam)?
If we're going to do something like that, we should convert it from a
boolean to an enum.
log_checkpoints = wal
(I'm being very careful not to slip on that slope.)
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-11-02 21:39:51 | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-02 21:06:58 | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |