Re: [HACKERS] Logging idle checkpoints

On 2017-10-02 07:43:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> >> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should
> >> > fix this before 11.  If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can
> >> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems.
> >>
> >> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch
> >> (adding Stephen in the loop here):
> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+K2wCd2W-SCtpJDg7Xn3g@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after
> > all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's
> > plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by
> > this.
> 
> No real objections from here, actually.

Vik, because there was some, even though mild, objections, I'd rather
not push this right now. Stephen deserves a chance to reply.  So this'll
have to wait for 10.1, sorry :(

- Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers