Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | bb9c7a0a-014a-9acf-d556-2167eec86a25@wi3ck.info обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/5/21 10:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Nov-05, Michael Banck wrote: > >> Well that, and the fact those distinctions are only done for user- >> facing events, whereas it seems to me we only distinguish between LOG >> and PANIC for server-facing events; maybe we need one or more >> additional levels here in order to make it easier for admins to see the >> really bad things that are happening? > > I think what we need is an orthogonal classification. "This FATAL here > is routine; that ERROR there denotes a severe problem in the underlying > OS". Additional levels won't help with that. Maybe adding the concept > of "severity" or "criticality" to some messages would be useful to > decide what to keep and what to discard. > That would go a long way. I would add a third classification that is "area", indicating if this is for example resource or application logic related. An FK violation is app-logic, running checkpoints too often is a resource problem. Allow the DBA to create some filter based on combinations of them and it should work well enough. Regards, Jan Wieck
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: