Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMJ9hiqARzG0QF2E9HdM0pdQWoR4-rph5W02Fc0THMBkZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:

>> It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we
>> could just use "time" as the reason, or we could just leave it.
>>
>> Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose
>> anything we want. What do we want it to say?
>
>
> I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print "(no flags)", so that it wouldn't look
> like there's something missing in the log message.

The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the
user interpret the log message correctly.

I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead,
since it is literally time for a checkpoint.

--Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Heap truncation without AccessExclusiveLock (9.4)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)