On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > 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.
No real objections from here, actually. >> 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. Sure. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
