Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Therefore, reporting the checkpoint progress in the server logs, much
>> like [1], seems to be the best way IMO.
> I find progress reporting in the logfile to generally be a terrible
> way of doing things, and the fact that we do it for the startup
> process is/should be only because we have no other choice, not because
> it's the right choice.
I'm already pretty seriously unhappy about the log-spamming effects of
64da07c41 (default to log_checkpoints=on), and am willing to lay a side
bet that that gets reverted after we have some field experience with it.
This proposal seems far worse from that standpoint. Keep in mind that
our out-of-the-box logging configuration still doesn't have any log
rotation ability, which means that the noisier the server is in normal
operation, the sooner you fill your disk.
> I think the right choice to solve the *general* problem is the
> mentioned pg_stat_progress_checkpoints.
+1
regards, tom lane