Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... The question stands though: why isn't it
> >> appropriate to warn of overly-frequently-issued manual checkpoints?
>
> > ... the warning is for cases when you are filling up the WAL logs too
> > quickly and checkpoints are happening too frequently. If a user is
> > doing checkpoints, it isn't anything increasing the checkpoint segments
> > is going to help.
>
> No, I think the warning is for when checkpoints are happening too
> frequently, period. An overly small checkpoint_segments setting
> is one possible cause of that, but the performance penalty from
> too many checkpoints is just as bad no matter what's causing it.
> (Remember that a checkpoint not only forces I/O in itself, but
> significantly increases subsequent WAL traffic because of needing
> to dump whole page images into WAL.)
>
> How do you feel about improving the signaling mechanism but using
> it just to vary the HINT?
>
> LOG: checkpoints are occurring too frequently (nn seconds apart)
> HINT: Consider increasing the configuration parameter "checkpoint_segments".
>
> LOG: checkpoints are occurring too frequently (nn seconds apart)
> HINT: Issuing explicit CHECKPOINTs so often is really expensive.
Sure, fine by me. My only point is that we need something to tell
people they need to increase their checkpoint_segments. If we add other
warnings, that is fine too.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073