Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... If they'd have noticed it while the server was up, perhaps because the > > "last checkpoint" value hadn't changed in a long time (which seems like it > > might be available via stats even if, as you say, the background writer is > > out of its mind at that point), they could have done such a kill and > > collected some actual useful information here. That's the theory at > > least. > > Well, mebbe, but that still seems to require a lot of custom monitoring > infrastructure that is not present in this patch, and furthermore that > this patch doesn't especially aid the development of.
These kind of things can be monitored externally very easily, say by Nagios, when the values are available via the database. If you have to troll the logs, it's quite a bit harder to do it. I'm not sure about the right values to export -- last checkpoint start time is the most obvious idea, but I would also suggest exporting last checkpoint end, or NULL if the checkpoint is ongoing; and also previous- to-last checkpoint start and end. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
