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 within
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 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 suggesting you
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
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
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 and
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 --- are you
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
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:
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
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 main
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 and not
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 frequently.
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 checkpoints are
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 code
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_SECONDS of
16 matches
Mail list logo
