Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
От | Julien Rouhaud |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOBaU_b1HjmjB=SDt6tqa17w5-Loa8mcnJ1e73PtJTvmS_d_mQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Le mer. 3 nov. 2021 à 00:18, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> a écrit :
On 11/2/21 12:09, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:55 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think shipping with log_checkpoints=on and
>> log_autovacuum_min_duration=10m or so would be one of the best things
>> we could possibly do to allow ex-post-facto troubleshooting of
>> system-wide performance issues. The idea that users care more about
>> the inconvenience of a handful of extra log messages than they do
>> about being able to find problems when they have them matches no part
>> of my experience. I suspect that many users would be willing to incur
>> *way more* useless log messages than those settings would ever
>> generate if it meant that they could actually find problems when and
>> if they have them.
> I fully agree.
/metoo
same here
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: