Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 927709.1635692359@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> writes: > How about we enable it out of the box? No. The general policy at the moment is that a normally-functioning server should emit *no* log traffic by default (other than a few messages at startup and shutdown). log_checkpoints is a particularly poor candidate for an exception to that policy, because it would produce so much traffic. No DBA would be likely to consider it as anything but log spam. > It seems the checkpoint stats, that are emitted to server logs when > the GUC log_checkpoints is enabled, are so important that a postgres > database provider would ever want to disable the GUC. This statement seems ridiculous on its face. If users need to wait with bated breath for a checkpoint report, we have something else we need to fix. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: