On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the
>> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I
>> guess.
>
> Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution. Make it a
> configuration parameter.
Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that
drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) or
detailed log (with a lower log level).
In the first patch I've proposed a new GUC (used to set how often the info
should be logged or disable it), but Josh Berkus pointed out that I should
get rid of it if I can. Which is what I've done in the following patches.
Tomas
