Re: Performance monitoring (was: [PATCHES] Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes)

From: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance monitoring (was: [PATCHES] Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes)
Date: 2007-05-12 23:09:55
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.64.0705121839520.7527@westnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Sat, 12 May 2007, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> Not to beat a dead horse, but do we really want to force folks to be
> parsing logs for performance monitoring?

All of the really interesting DBA level information about checkpoints is
now sitting in pg_stat_bgwriter. There really is no reason I'd expect
this information to be part of normal performance monitoring setup; for me
it has fit into troubleshooting and R&D.

When I'm talking about parsing logs in this context, it's for answering
questions like "how does fsync time correlate with amount of data written
at checkpoint time?" Since I've found it educational to sort through
that, I just didn't want the patch modified so that was harder to do than
it had to be.

If I thought it worth the trouble to expose that level of information via
the stats interface, I'd have submitted that instead of this log-based
patch. This circles back to the previous discussion of whether this
particular information is strictly developer-level.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-05-12 23:24:51 Re: Performance monitoring
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-05-12 22:32:38 Re: Managing the community information stream

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2007-05-12 23:24:51 Re: Performance monitoring
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-05-12 22:10:52 Re: Enable integer datetimes by default