On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 08:02:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm still of the position that the default ought to be that a > normally-functioning server generates no ongoing log output. > Only people who have got Nagios watching their logs, or some > such setup, are going to want anything different. And that is > a minority use-case. There are going to be way more people > bitching because their postmaster log overflowed their disk > than there will be people who are happier because you made > such output the default. (Don't forget that our default > logging setup does not rotate the logs.) > > However, I'm prepared to accept a tight definition of what > "normally-functioning" means. For instance, I don't have a > problem with the idea of having log_autovacuum_min_duration > defaulting to something positive, as long as it's fairly large. > Then it's only going to emit anything if there is a situation > that really needs attention. > > My objection to log_checkpoints=on is that that's going to produce > a constant stream of messages even when *nothing at all* is wrong. > Worse yet, a novice DBA would likely have a hard time understanding > from those messages whether there was anything to worry about or not. > If we could design a variant of log_checkpoints that would produce > output only when the situation really needs attention, I'd be fine > with enabling that by default.
I wonder if we need to follow the Unix model on this by having kernel messages logged to a file via syslog (and potentially filtered), and then have all recent activity logged into a ring buffer and visible via something like dmesg. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
