* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > the checkpoint_warning feature was added by commit 2986aa6a668bce3cfb836
> > in November 2002 when we didn't have any logging of checkpointing at
> > all.  I propose to remove it: surely anyone who cares about analyzing
> > checkpointing behavior nowadays is using the log_checkpoint feature
> > instead, which contains much more detail.  The other one is just noise
> > now, and probably ignored amidst the number of other warning traffic.
> Hmm, not sure.  ISTM log_checkpoint is oriented to people who know what
> they are doing, whereas checkpoint_warning is more targeted to trying
> to help people who don't.  Perhaps you could make an argument that
> checkpoint_warning is useless because the people whom it's meant to help
> won't notice the warning anyway --- but I doubt that it's been
> "superseded" by log_checkpoint, because the latter would only be enabled
> by people who already have a clue that checkpoint performance is something
> to worry about.
> Or in short, this may be a fine change to make, but I don't like your
> argument for it.

I don't agree that it's sensible to get rid of.  Having just
log_checkpoints will have the logs filled with checkpoints starting
because of XLOG, but there's no indication of that being a bad thing.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to