--On 26. April 2014 19:42:47 -0700 Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I suggest removing it for 9.5, and instead logging individual
occurrences of backend fsync requests within ForwardFsyncRequest(). It
seems fair to treat that as an anomaly to draw particular attention
to.
But wouldn't
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
I suggest removing it for 9.5, and instead logging individual
occurrences of backend fsync requests within ForwardFsyncRequest(). It
seems fair to treat that as an anomaly to draw particular attention
to.
But wouldn't
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
I suggest removing it for 9.5, and instead logging individual
occurrences of backend fsync requests within ForwardFsyncRequest(). It
seems fair to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Overall, I don't see much reason to tinker with this. If we had no
reporting at all of this condition now, I'd probably be mildly more
supportive of adding a log message than a counter. But since we've
already got something and there's no real
On 4/26/14, 9:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Backend fsyncs are theoretically still possible after the fsync
request queue compaction patch (which was subsequently back-patched to
all supported release branches). However, I'm reasonably confident
that that patch was so effective as to make a
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net wrote:
All else equal, I don't like the idea of removing this from
pg_stat_bgwriter. Being able to look there and see if this is occurring
since last stats reset is much easier than grepping logfiles.
Have you ever actually seen it at
Backend fsyncs are theoretically still possible after the fsync
request queue compaction patch (which was subsequently back-patched to
all supported release branches). However, I'm reasonably confident
that that patch was so effective as to make a backend fsync all but
impossible. As such, it
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes:
Backend fsyncs are theoretically still possible after the fsync
request queue compaction patch (which was subsequently back-patched to
all supported release branches). However, I'm reasonably confident
that that patch was so effective as to make a
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes:
Backend fsyncs are theoretically still possible after the fsync
request queue compaction patch (which was subsequently back-patched to
all supported release branches). However, I'm
