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 che
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 fre
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I could argue that a client-driven process that issues CHECKPOINT every
> >> few seconds is equally deserving of a warning. The only thing wrong is
> >> that the HINT is inapplicable ... but that's why it's a HINT
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I could argue that a client-driven process that issues CHECKPOINT every
>> few seconds is equally deserving of a warning. The only thing wrong is
>> that the HINT is inapplicable ... but that's why it's a HINT and not
>> part of the ma
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I just did CHECKPOINT;CHECKPOINT and got the warning in the logs. This
> > needs to be fixed.
>
> See code:
>
> /*
> * Ideally we should only warn if this checkpoint was
> * requested due to run
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just did CHECKPOINT;CHECKPOINT and got the warning in the logs. This
> needs to be fixed.
See code:
/*
* Ideally we should only warn if this checkpoint was
* requested due to running out of segment files, and not
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference?
>
> Wouldn't think so.
>
> I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command
> within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be
> considered wrong or
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 21:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just to confirm that Simon is not suffering this uniquely, I saw this
> > the other day on Windows, I believe - meant to report it but it got away
> > from me.
>
> Oh, I bet I know what's going on --- a
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to confirm that Simon is not suffering this uniquely, I saw this
> the other day on Windows, I believe - meant to report it but it got away
> from me.
Oh, I bet I know what's going on --- are you guys launching the
postmaster in a console window
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference?
Wouldn't think so.
I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command
within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be
considered wrong or not, but in
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shutdown was via CTRL-Cmake a difference?
Wouldn't think so.
I can force the message to appear if I do a *manual* CHECKPOINT command
within thirty seconds of startup. I'm not sure if that should be
considered wrong or not, but in any case it doesn't
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 19:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As of now, (i.e. even including the new bgwriter shutdown) if you:
> > 1. start postmaster
> > 2. do some work that writes xlog
> > 3. shutdown within some few seconds of startup
> > you get a WARNING suggest
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As of now, (i.e. even including the new bgwriter shutdown) if you:
> 1. start postmaster
> 2. do some work that writes xlog
> 3. shutdown within some few seconds of startup
> you get a WARNING suggesting you increase CHECKPOINT_SEGMENTS, which is
> clearly
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Minor patch to correct erroneous warning in cvs tip, believed to be a
> > very minor regression.
>
> This patch is wrong; it effectively disables the warning altogether.
>
> > When a shutdown was requested
Patch rejected, asking for more research.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Minor patch to correct erroneous warning in cvs tip, believed to be a
> very minor regression.
>
> When a shutdown was requested within CHECKPOINT_SECOND
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Minor patch to correct erroneous warning in cvs tip, believed to be a
> very minor regression.
This patch is wrong; it effectively disables the warning altogether.
> When a shutdown was requested within CHECKPOINT_SECONDS of a checkpoint,
> the shutdown c
16 matches
Mail list logo
