On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote: > > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should > > fix this before 11. If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can > > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems. > > This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch > (adding Stephen in the loop here): > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+k2wcd2w-sctpjdg7x...@mail.gmail.com
I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by this. > Actually, shouldn't we make BgWriterStats a bit smarter? We could add > a counter for skipped checkpoints in v11 (too late for v10). Wouldn't hurt, but seems orthogonal. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
