Thread: regular logging of checkpoint progress
Tomas, I cannot seem to see any of the patches you link here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=628 Looks like you need to take the < > out of the messageid. -Andy
On 09/05/2011 12:17 PM, Andy Colson wrote: > Tomas, I cannot seem to see any of the patches you link here: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=628 > > Looks like you need to take the < > out of the messageid. > > -Andy > This patch seems to solve the problem of going back in time to solve a problem. (need time stamped log files to see if thingswhere slow because of checkpoint). Several people thought a view or some-non-log option would be better. Tomas replied "but I need to go back in time to postdiagnose a problem", and I saw no replies to that. Taking into account Noah's and Greg's "Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost" patch is also sending to logs, do we all nowagree that this is proper way? -Andy
On 5 Září 2011, 19:17, Andy Colson wrote: > Tomas, I cannot seem to see any of the patches you link here: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=628 > > Looks like you need to take the < > out of the messageid. Sorry, fixed. Tomas
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote: > Taking into account Noah's and Greg's "Displaying accumulated autovacuum > cost" patch is also sending to logs, do we all now agree that this is proper > way? My general impression of the thread is that nobody really wants to reject the patch (because we all know that we need a lot more logging options than we currently have) but at the same time nobody seems quite certain why someone would want to look at this precise bit of information. I mean, it's already possible to get log messages at the start and end of a checkpoint, so there's no problem with finding out whether a checkpoint was in progress at the time something was slow. In fact, you can even figure out which phase of the checkpoint you were in. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote: >> Taking into account Noah's and Greg's "Displaying accumulated autovacuum >> cost" patch is also sending to logs, do we all now agree that this is proper >> way? > > My general impression of the thread is that nobody really wants to > reject the patch (because we all know that we need a lot more logging > options than we currently have) but at the same time nobody seems > quite certain why someone would want to look at this precise bit of > information. > > I mean, it's already possible to get log messages at the start and end > of a checkpoint, so there's no problem with finding out whether a > checkpoint was in progress at the time something was slow. In fact, > you can even figure out which phase of the checkpoint you were in. Yes, we need to differentiate between real time and historic information requirements. If the requirement is a historical viewpoint then we already have that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote: > Several people thought a view or some-non-log option would be better. +1 > Tomas > replied "but I need to go back in time to post diagnose a problem", and I > saw no replies to that. You can go back in time if you periodically collect the information from a view or some-non-log. Some tools (e.g., pg_statsinfo, Oracle statspack) have already been doing that. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center