On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should
> > fix this before 11.  If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can
> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems.
> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch
> (adding Stephen in the loop here):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+k2wcd2w-sctpjdg7x...@mail.gmail.com

I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after
all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's
plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by

> Actually, shouldn't we make BgWriterStats a bit smarter? We could add
> a counter for skipped checkpoints in v11 (too late for v10).

Wouldn't hurt, but seems orthogonal.


Andres Freund

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

Reply via email to