Re: [HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we could just use time as the reason, or we could just leave it. Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose anything we want. What do we want it to say? I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print (no flags), so that it wouldn't look like there's something missing in the log message. The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the user interpret the log message correctly. I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead, since it is literally time for a checkpoint. Or, what about using CHECKPOINT_FORCE and just printing force? Currently that checkpoint always starts because of existence of the end-of-recovery record, but I think we should ensure that the checkpoint always starts by using that flag. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
On 21 May 2013 15:29, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: Or, what about using CHECKPOINT_FORCE and just printing force? Currently that checkpoint always starts because of existence of the end-of-recovery record, but I think we should ensure that the checkpoint always starts by using that flag. This would mean we can't use the secondary checkpoint record, but we already gave that up so should be OK. Three people, three suggestions; so I will agree to this suggestion so we can get on with it. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
On 19.05.2013 17:22, Simon Riggs wrote: On 1 May 2013 10:05, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: In HEAD, when the standby is promoted, recovery requests the checkpoint but doesn't wait for its completion. I found the checkpoint starting log message of this checkpoint looks odd as follows: LOG: checkpoint starting: I think something like the following is better. LOG: checkpoint starting: end-of-recovery In 9.2 or before, end-of-recovery part is logged. Even if we changed the behavior of end-of-recovery checkpoint, I think that it's more intuitive to label it as end-of-recovery. Thought? The checkpoint isn't an end-of-recovery checkpoint, its just the first checkpoint after the end of recovery. I don't think it should say end-of-recovery. Agreed. The problem is that we've now changed the code to trigger a checkpoint in a place that wasn't part of the original design, so the checkpoint called at that point isn't supplied with a reason and so has nothing to print. It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we could just use time as the reason, or we could just leave it. Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose anything we want. What do we want it to say? I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print (no flags), so that it wouldn't look like there's something missing in the log message. - Heikk -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we could just use time as the reason, or we could just leave it. Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose anything we want. What do we want it to say? I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print (no flags), so that it wouldn't look like there's something missing in the log message. The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the user interpret the log message correctly. I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead, since it is literally time for a checkpoint. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
On 1 May 2013 10:05, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: In HEAD, when the standby is promoted, recovery requests the checkpoint but doesn't wait for its completion. I found the checkpoint starting log message of this checkpoint looks odd as follows: LOG: checkpoint starting: I think something like the following is better. LOG: checkpoint starting: end-of-recovery In 9.2 or before, end-of-recovery part is logged. Even if we changed the behavior of end-of-recovery checkpoint, I think that it's more intuitive to label it as end-of-recovery. Thought? The checkpoint isn't an end-of-recovery checkpoint, its just the first checkpoint after the end of recovery. I don't think it should say end-of-recovery. The problem is that we've now changed the code to trigger a checkpoint in a place that wasn't part of the original design, so the checkpoint called at that point isn't supplied with a reason and so has nothing to print. It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we could just use time as the reason, or we could just leave it. Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose anything we want. What do we want it to say? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] fast promotion and log_checkpoints
Hi, In HEAD, when the standby is promoted, recovery requests the checkpoint but doesn't wait for its completion. I found the checkpoint starting log message of this checkpoint looks odd as follows: LOG: checkpoint starting: I think something like the following is better. LOG: checkpoint starting: end-of-recovery In 9.2 or before, end-of-recovery part is logged. Even if we changed the behavior of end-of-recovery checkpoint, I think that it's more intuitive to label it as end-of-recovery. Thought? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
