On 16 October 2014 20:31, Michael Banck wrote:
> I'll attach it to the next commitfest and see whether anybody likes it.
Not much...
We may decide we wanted to always-log shutdown checkpoints. I'm
neutral about that, but I can see the logic. But if we did, we would
use exactly the same log mess
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 02.10.2014, 15:21 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck:
> we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
> because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
> being wri
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > For embedded devices and similar small-scale systems, I can see Tom's
> > point. At the same time, I would expect those to require sufficient
> > configuration that also setting log_checkpoints to 'off' wouldn't be a
> > huge deal
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 2014-10-09 09:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> -1. Every time we've turned on default logging of routine events,
>>> there's been pushback and it was eventually turned off again as log spam.
>> We're talking about 2 lo
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2014-10-09 09:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Stephen Frost writes:
> > > Yeah, I agree with this- it's extremely useful information and it's
> > > really not that verbose in general..
> >
> > -1. Every time we've turned on default logging of
On 2014-10-09 09:44:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> How about flipping the default for log_checkpoints instead? There really
> >> isn't a good reason for having it disabled by default.
>
> > Yeah, I agree with this- it's e
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
> we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
> because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
> being written, delaying sh
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Samstag, den 04.10.2014, 15:05 -0500 schrieb Jim Nasby:
> > On 10/4/14, 1:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> > > we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why
>
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> How about flipping the default for log_checkpoints instead? There really
>> isn't a good reason for having it disabled by default.
> Yeah, I agree with this- it's extremely useful information and it's
> really not that ver
* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 15:21:48 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I've attached a trivial patch for this, should it be added to the next
> > commitfest?
>
> How about flipping the default for log_checkpoints instead? There really
> isn't a good reason for hav
On 2014-10-02 15:21:48 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
> because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
> being written, delay
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Michael Banck wrote:
> Looking at it from a DBA perspective, this would indeed be better, yes.
>
> However, I see a few issues with that:
>
> 1. If you are using an init script (or another wrapper around pg_ctl),
> you don't get any of its output it seems.
>
> 2. Ha
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.10.2014, 15:05 -0500 schrieb Jim Nasby:
> On 10/4/14, 1:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> > we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> > is not shutting down even though they requested i
On 10/4/14, 1:21 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Michael Banck mailto:michael.ba...@credativ.de>> wrote:
Hi,
we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
because
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Michael Banck
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
> because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
> being written, de
Am Freitag, den 03.10.2014, 12:07 -0300 schrieb Alvaro Herrera:
> Michael Banck wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> > b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> > index 5a4dbb9..f2716ae 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.
Michael Banck wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> index 5a4dbb9..f2716ae 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
> @@ -8085,10 +8085,14 @@ CreateCheckPoint(int flags)
>
> /*
>
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 02.10.2014, 08:17 -0700 schrieb David G Johnston:
> Michael Banck-2 wrote
> > I've attached a trivial patch for this, should it be added to the next
> > commitfest?
>
> Peeking at this provokes a couple of novice questions:
>
> While apparently it is impossible to have a
Michael Banck-2 wrote
> Hi,
>
> we have seen repeatedly that users can be confused about why PostgreSQL
> is not shutting down even though they requested it. Usually, this is
> because `log_checkpoints' is not enabled and the final checkpoint is
> being written, delaying shutdown. As no message b
19 matches
Mail list logo
