On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should
>> > fix this before 11. If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can
>> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems.
>>
>> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch
>> (adding Stephen in the loop here):
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+K2wCd2W-SCtpJDg7Xn3g@mail.gmail.com
>
> I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after
> all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's
> plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by
> this.
No real objections from here, actually.
>> Actually, shouldn't we make BgWriterStats a bit smarter? We could add
>> a counter for skipped checkpoints in v11 (too late for v10).
>
> Wouldn't hurt, but seems orthogonal.
Sure.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers