Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jan Wieck
Тема Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Дата
Msg-id bb9c7a0a-014a-9acf-d556-2167eec86a25@wi3ck.info
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 11/5/21 10:50, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-05, Michael Banck wrote:
> 
>> Well that, and the fact those distinctions are only done for user-
>> facing events, whereas it seems to me we only distinguish between LOG
>> and PANIC for server-facing events; maybe we need one or more
>> additional levels here in order to make it easier for admins to see the
>> really bad things that are happening?
> 
> I think what we need is an orthogonal classification.  "This FATAL here
> is routine; that ERROR there denotes a severe problem in the underlying
> OS".  Additional levels won't help with that.  Maybe adding the concept
> of "severity" or "criticality" to some messages would be useful to
> decide what to keep and what to discard.
> 

That would go a long way. I would add a third classification that is 
"area", indicating if this is for example resource or application logic 
related. An FK violation is app-logic, running checkpoints too often is 
a resource problem. Allow the DBA to create some filter based on 
combinations of them and it should work well enough.


Regards, Jan Wieck



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] rename column if exists