* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2014-10-09 09:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > > Yeah, I agree with this- it's extremely useful information and it's > > > really not that verbose in general.. > > > > -1. Every time we've turned on default logging of routine events, > > there's been pushback and it was eventually turned off again as log spam. > > I guarantee you that logging checkpoints will be seen as log spam, except > > by people who are actually having trouble with that behavior, which is > > a small minority. > > We're talking about 2 log message per checkpoint_timeout interval > here. That's pretty darn far away from log spam. Was there really any > case of such low frequency message causing ire?
For embedded devices and similar small-scale systems, I can see Tom's point. At the same time, I would expect those to require sufficient configuration that also setting log_checkpoints to 'off' wouldn't be a huge deal. > And if it's more frequent you can be happy that you see the log message > - because your config isn't appropriate for your load. The number of > times I've seen people being baffled at the bad performance because of a > inadequate checkpoint configuration, whose effect they couldn't see, is > baffling. I certainly agree with this, but then, look at our default log_line_prefix and other default log settings.. In general, our defaults are horrible and fixing this one is really just the tip of the iceburg.. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature