On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:01, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > On 2 Září 2011, 9:47, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 21:59, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: >>> I've prepared a significantly simplified version of the patch. The two >>> main changes are >>> >>> (a) it does not update the pg_stat_bgwriter anymore, it just prints an >>> info to the server log >>> (b) a new GUC is not required, it's driven by the log_checkpoints >> >> The comment still refers to the checkpoint_update_limit. > > OK, I'll fix that. > >>> This version will log at least 10 'checkpoint status' lines (at 10%, >>> 20%, >>> 30%, ...) and whenever 5 seconds since the last log elapses. The time is >>> not checked for each buffer but for 128 buffers. >>> >>> So if the checkpoint is very slow, you'll get a message every 5 seconds, >>> if it's fast you'll get 10 messages. >> >> I would personally find this very annoying. If I read it correctly, >> anybody with a database with no problem at all but that has >> log_checkpoints on suddenly got at least 10 times as many messages? I >> generally try to advise my clients to *not* log excessively because >> then they will end up not bothering to read the logs... > > What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the > current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I guess.
I guess if it's at a DEBUG level it won't annoy anybody who doesn't need it. Not sure if NOTICE is low enough.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers