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,
>>> 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.


Fujii Masao

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to