Re: log_checkpoint's "0 transaction log file(s) added" is extremely misleading

On January 22, 2016 3:29:44 AM GMT+01:00, Simon Riggs  wrote:
>On 22 January 2016 at 01:12, Andres Freund  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While in theory correct, I think $subject is basically meaningless
>> because other backends may have added thousands of new segments. Yes,
>it
>> wasn't the checkpointer, but that's not particularly relevant
>> imo. Additionally, afaics, it will only ever be 0 or 1.
>>
>
>Even better, we could make it add >1

That'd indeed be good, but I don't think it really will address my complaint: We'd still potentially create new segments outside the prealloc call. Including from within the checkpointer, when flushing WAL to be able to write out a page.

Andres

---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.