On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On January 22, 2016 3:29:44 AM GMT+01:00, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: >>On 22 January 2016 at 01:12, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While in theory correct, I think $subject is basically meaningless
What about just changing "added" to "preallocated" to avoid the confusion? >>> because other backends may have added thousands of new segments. Yes, >>it >>> wasn't the checkpointer, but that's not particularly relevant >>> imo. Additionally, afaics, it will only ever be 0 or 1. >>> >> >>Even better, we could make it add >1 > > That'd indeed be good, but I don't think it really will address my complaint: > We'd still potentially create new segments outside the prealloc call. > Including from within the checkpointer, when flushing WAL to be able to write > out a page. IMO it's more helpful to display such information in something like pg_stat_walwriter view rather than checkpoint log message. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
