Re: Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29594.1412877651@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> On 2014-10-09 09:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> -1. Every time we've turned on default logging of routine events, >>> there's been pushback and it was eventually turned off again as log spam. >> We're talking about 2 log message per checkpoint_timeout interval >> here. That's pretty darn far away from log spam. Was there really any >> case of such low frequency message causing ire? > For embedded devices and similar small-scale systems, I can see Tom's > point. At the same time, I would expect those to require sufficient > configuration that also setting log_checkpoints to 'off' wouldn't be a > huge deal. Here's the problem as I see it: DBAs will be annoyed by the spam and will turn it off. Then they'll still be confused when a shutdown takes a long time. So this is no fix at all for the original complaint. I'm also not entirely convinced that checkpoints have anything to do with the complaint. Once we get a shutdown request, we're going to have to perform a checkpoint, which we do at full speed, no delays (or at least did so last I checked). Whether a checkpoint was already in progress is more or less irrelevant. It's always been like that and I can't recall anybody complaining about it. I suspect Marti is correct that the real problem is elsewhere. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: