"Tomas Vondra" <t...@fuzzy.cz> writes: > On 2 ZÃ¡ÅÃ 2011, 20:48, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, if we're going to have this at all, some form of GUC control over >> it seems necessary. I'm still disturbed by the verbosity of the >> proposed output though. Couldn't we collapse the information into a >> single log entry per checkpoint cycle? Perhaps that would be sufficient >> to just let the log_checkpoints setting be used as-is.
> I'm not sure what you mean by collapsing the info into a single log entry? > That would mean I'd have to wait till the checkpoint completes, and one of > the reasons for this patch was to get info about progress while the > checkpoint is running. Well, to be blunt, putting stuff into the postmaster log is entirely the wrong way to satify a requirement like that. If you want to expose progress information, it should be exposed via something dynamic like pg_stat_activity. What could be useful to log is statistics that people might want to aggregate later, and I don't immediately see a reason why such stats couldn't be logged just once at end of each checkpoint cycle. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers