From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Date: | 2016-11-10 18:03:43 |
Message-ID: | CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+K2wCd2W-SCtpJDg7Xn3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 09:33 AM, David Steele wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/16 10:28 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>>>> b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> + if (log_checkpoints)
>>>> + ereport(LOG, (errmsg("checkpoint
>>>> skipped")));
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do we really need to log that we're skipping a checkpoint..? As the
>>> point of this is to avoid write activity on a system which is idle, it
>>> doesn't make sense to me to add a new cause for writes to happen when
>>> we're idle.
>>>
>>
>> log_checkpoints is not enabled by default, though, so if the user does
>> enable it don't you think they would want to know when checkpoints
>> *don't* happen?
>>
>
> Yes but I don't know that it needs to be anywhere below DEBUG2 (vs
> log_checkpoints).
>
Agreed. You certainly may wish to log checkpoints, even on an embedded or
low I/o system, but logging that nothing is happening doesn't seem useful
except perhaps for debugging.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2016-11-10 18:23:15 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-10 17:56:04 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |