Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Date
Msg-id 39375fbe-cd08-3079-5f93-ee229e0108a5@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
List pgsql-hackers
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


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: archive modules
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression