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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[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])