Yeah,the proposed idea makes sense to me,as users will almost see at the end of log messages it will be easy to find out what is the checkpoint reason. +1 for it.
Regards, Vasuki M On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 4:26 PM Michael Banck <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 02:41:16PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2026 at 5:09 PM Soumya S Murali > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 5:49 AM Andres Freund <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On 2025-12-01 16:48:56 +0530, Soumya S Murali wrote: > > > > > This patch is an update after reworking the “checkpoint reason” > changes as > > > > > a standalone patch, separate from the pg_stat_checkpointer > additions as > > > > > suggested [1]. > > > > This kind of information already seems to be included in the > > checkpoint starting log message, for example: > > > > LOG: checkpoint starting: fast force wait > > > > Why do you want to include essentially the same information in the > > checkpoint ending log message as well? > > I do think it is useful; the checkpoint finished message has a lot more > information than the checkpoint starting meessage (which basically only > mentions the reason) and when you extract log messages you currently > need to backtrack from the checkpoint finished message to the > corresponding checkpoint starting message to find out the type. Seeing > how the checkpoint finished message is so much more verbose anyway, I > think adding the reason to it is reasonably and helpful. > > > Michael > > > > >
