From: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |
Date: | 2011-09-02 18:54:05 |
Message-ID: | 5f80ebfc28225c4ae51e1577bdb6264d.squirrel@sq.gransy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 Září 2011, 19:09, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
>> I've prepared a significantly simplified version of the patch. The two
>> main changes are
>>
>> (a) it does not update the pg_stat_bgwriter anymore, it just prints an
>> info to the server log
>>
>> (b) a new GUC is not required, it's driven by the log_checkpoints
>>
>> This version will log at least 10 'checkpoint status' lines (at 10%,
>> 20%,
>> 30%, ...) and whenever 5 seconds since the last log elapses. The time is
>> not checked for each buffer but for 128 buffers.
>>
>> So if the checkpoint is very slow, you'll get a message every 5 seconds,
>> if it's fast you'll get 10 messages.
>
> This seems like a strange heuristic. I understand the value of
> emitting a progress report every N seconds, but why would you want a
> report at 10%, 20%, 30% even if it hasn't been 5 seconds yet? I don't
> need ten progress messages on a checkpoint that only takes three
> seconds to complete.
Not really, but I admit that the current heuristics is a bit weird.
I do need to get info about progress even for timed checkpoints (that's
why I'm logging after each 10%). OTOH I've just realized that with the
current implementation it'll log each 5 seconds, so for a 5-minute timed
checkpoint you'll get about 60 messages. That probably is too much,
especially if you're using completion target near 1.0 (which means there's
always a timed checkpoint running).
So I think a sane heuristics would be:
(1) for a timed checpoint, log each 10%
(2) for other checkpoint types, log after 5 seconds
Tomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-09-02 18:54:07 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-02 18:52:25 | Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup |