| From: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 18:19:49 |
| Message-ID: | e27e0f31-2593-125d-8580-81bcb17b8377@wi3ck.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/2/21 12:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:55 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think shipping with log_checkpoints=on and
>> log_autovacuum_min_duration=10m or so would be one of the best things
>> we could possibly do to allow ex-post-facto troubleshooting of
>> system-wide performance issues. The idea that users care more about
>> the inconvenience of a handful of extra log messages than they do
>> about being able to find problems when they have them matches no part
>> of my experience. I suspect that many users would be willing to incur
>> *way more* useless log messages than those settings would ever
>> generate if it meant that they could actually find problems when and
>> if they have them.
>
> I fully agree.
>
+1
--
Jan Wieck
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-11-02 18:26:14 | Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-11-02 18:17:05 | Re: make tuplestore helper function |