On Fri, 11 May 2007, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Printing the messages at LOG-level would bring the code in line with the documentation, but I don't think we want to fill the log with checkpoint chatter unless the DBA explicitly asks for that. How about INFO?
In putting that together, I pushed everything toward the lowest DEBUG level that it was possible for it to run at without the messages I wanted to see being completely lost. I didn't want this to get rejected just on the basis of being too chatty for regular users. Putting a single line in for each checkpoint at INFO, with all the individual progress points being at DEBUG1 or 2, would be close to optimal as far as I'm concerned. More on this below.
Or we could add a GUC variable similar to log_connections or log_statement to control if the messages are printed or not, and use LOG.
If the levels for the individual messages are adjusted usefully the ability to control whether they show up or not falls out of the existing log level adjustments; I haven't ever felt a strong need for GUC when using this code. If, as you say, there's already a move in this direction, then fine--another GUC would be better.
We don't need to print the times elapsed in each phase on a separate line, that's just derived information from the other lines, unless we use different log-levels for detail lines
Let me turn this around for a second and ask you this: what do you think people are going to do with this information? I can tell you what I do. I parse the logs and look for that single line with the summary information. I then take the three pieces of information it provides (MB written, time to write, time to fsync) and save them into a table. From there I generate stats, scatter plots, all sorts of useful stuff.
If you know when the checkpoint ended, and you know how long each of the pieces took, you can reconstruct the other times easily. The way you describe this it is true--that the summary is redundant given the detail--but if you put yourself in the shoes of a log file parser the other way around is easier to work with. Piecing together log entries is a pain, splitting them is easy.
If I had to only keep one line out of this, it would be the one with the summary. It would be nice to have it logged at INFO.
-- * Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly