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])
