Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... The question stands though: why isn't it > >> appropriate to warn of overly-frequently-issued manual checkpoints? > > > ... the warning is for cases when you are filling up the WAL logs too > > quickly and checkpoints are happening too frequently. If a user is > > doing checkpoints, it isn't anything increasing the checkpoint segments > > is going to help. > > No, I think the warning is for when checkpoints are happening too > frequently, period. An overly small checkpoint_segments setting > is one possible cause of that, but the performance penalty from > too many checkpoints is just as bad no matter what's causing it. > (Remember that a checkpoint not only forces I/O in itself, but > significantly increases subsequent WAL traffic because of needing > to dump whole page images into WAL.) > > How do you feel about improving the signaling mechanism but using > it just to vary the HINT? > > LOG: checkpoints are occurring too frequently (nn seconds apart) > HINT: Consider increasing the configuration parameter "checkpoint_segments". > > LOG: checkpoints are occurring too frequently (nn seconds apart) > HINT: Issuing explicit CHECKPOINTs so often is really expensive.
Sure, fine by me. My only point is that we need something to tell people they need to increase their checkpoint_segments. If we add other warnings, that is fine too. -- 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 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
