Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | YYOOkM1ArplZA/0q@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 11:55:23AM -0400, Robert Haas 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. And these messages would in fact be the most > valuable thing in the log for a lot of users. What reasonable DBA > cares more about the fact that the application attempted an insert > that violated a foreign key constraint than they do about a checkpoint > that took 20 minutes to fsync everything? The former is expected; if > you thought that foreign key violations would never occur, you > wouldn't need to incur the expense of having the system enforce them. > The latter is unexpected and basically undiscoverable with default > settings. +1. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: