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

From David Steele
Subject Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Date
Msg-id 3f2fe76d-071c-f929-4982-8642ae4f7be8@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/2/21 12:35 PM, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Le mer. 3 nov. 2021 à 00:18, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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

+1

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.