* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > the checkpoint_warning feature was added by commit 2986aa6a668bce3cfb836 > > in November 2002 when we didn't have any logging of checkpointing at > > all. I propose to remove it: surely anyone who cares about analyzing > > checkpointing behavior nowadays is using the log_checkpoint feature > > instead, which contains much more detail. The other one is just noise > > now, and probably ignored amidst the number of other warning traffic. > > Hmm, not sure. ISTM log_checkpoint is oriented to people who know what > they are doing, whereas checkpoint_warning is more targeted to trying > to help people who don't. Perhaps you could make an argument that > checkpoint_warning is useless because the people whom it's meant to help > won't notice the warning anyway --- but I doubt that it's been > "superseded" by log_checkpoint, because the latter would only be enabled > by people who already have a clue that checkpoint performance is something > to worry about. > > Or in short, this may be a fine change to make, but I don't like your > argument for it.
I don't agree that it's sensible to get rid of. Having just log_checkpoints will have the logs filled with checkpoints starting because of XLOG, but there's no indication of that being a bad thing.
Also, the warning is greppable-for and easily spotted by log ingesting tools. I see no real reason to remove it.