Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just did CHECKPOINT;CHECKPOINT and got the warning in the logs.  This
> > needs to be fixed.
> See code:
>             /*
>              * Ideally we should only warn if this checkpoint was
>              * requested due to running out of segment files, and not
>              * if it was manually requested.  However we can't tell the
>              * difference with the current signalling mechanism.
>              */
> I could argue that a client-driven process that issues CHECKPOINT every
> few seconds is equally deserving of a warning.  The only thing wrong is
> that the HINT is inapplicable ... but that's why it's a HINT and not
> part of the main message.

Also consider they could have issued a checkpoint right after the system
did one.  Yuck.

When I added the warning I hoped to only have it happen for full logs
and not CHECKPOINT, but I guess I couldn't and someone else realized
that and added that clearer comment, or originally I could do that, but
since it has been moved into the bgwriter, it can't anymore.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to