Re: when the startup process doesn't - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: when the startup process doesn't
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaG+FzfoWi3dkvZM48256vmE0CZnppgGjq6EiPw=f4OpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: when the startup process doesn't  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: when the startup process doesn't
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 6:23 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> Should it show the rusage ?  It's shown at startup completion since 10a5b35a0,
> so it seems strange not to show it here.

I don't know, that seems like it's going to make the messages awfully
long, and I'm not sure of what use it is to see that for every report.

I don't like the name very much. log_min_duration_startup_process
seems to have been chosen to correspond to log_min_duration_statement,
but the semantics are different. That one is a threshold, whereas this
one is an interval. Maybe something like
log_startup_progress_interval?

As far as the patch itself goes, I think that the overhead of this
approach is going to be unacceptably high. I was imagining having a
timer running in the background that fires periodically, with the
interval handler just setting a flag. Then in the foreground we just
need to check whether the flag is set. I doubt that we can get away
with a GetCurrentTimestamp() after applying every WAL record ... that
seems like it will be slow.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't