| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: log_checkpoint's "0 transaction log file(s) added" is extremely misleading |
| Date: | 2016-01-22 02:29:44 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+j++=teOtX=EN+N5FiSj5HFSHm_ok-tPvZjx68tG+jhSJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 January 2016 at 01:12, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While in theory correct, I think $subject is basically meaningless
> because other backends may have added thousands of new segments. Yes, it
> wasn't the checkpointer, but that's not particularly relevant
> imo. Additionally, afaics, it will only ever be 0 or 1.
>
Even better, we could make it add >1
> I think we should either remove that part of the log output, or make it
> display the number of segments added since the beginning of the
> checkpoint.
>
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-01-22 02:33:17 | Re: log_checkpoint's "0 transaction log file(s) added" is extremely misleading |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-01-22 01:12:35 | log_checkpoint's "0 transaction log file(s) added" is extremely misleading |