From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints |
Date: | 2013-05-20 19:44:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ9hiqARzG0QF2E9HdM0pdQWoR4-rph5W02Fc0THMBkZA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we
>> could just use "time" as the reason, or we could just leave it.
>>
>> Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose
>> anything we want. What do we want it to say?
>
>
> I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print "(no flags)", so that it wouldn't look
> like there's something missing in the log message.
The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the
user interpret the log message correctly.
I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead,
since it is literally time for a checkpoint.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-05-20 20:01:39 | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-05-20 19:43:05 | Re: Heap truncation without AccessExclusiveLock (9.4) |