Re: regular logging of checkpoint progress

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)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