Hi, On 2021-11-02 11:55:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 10:59 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > The general policy at the moment is that a normally-functioning server > > should emit *no* log traffic by default (other than a few messages > > at startup and shutdown). log_checkpoints is a particularly poor > > candidate for an exception to that policy, because it would produce so > > much traffic. No DBA would be likely to consider it as anything but > > log spam. > > That's absolutely false. On any system where there's anything actually > happening, there's going to be tons of stuff in the log because there > are going to be failed connection attempts, queries that result in > errors, and all kinds of other things like that. By any reasonable > metric, the log volume of log_checkpoints=on is tiny.
Yes. I think we do have significant issues with noisy mesages drowning out all signal in the log, but that's largely stuff that's logged by default based on client actions, at a high rate, rather than something occasional like log checkpoints. It's *hard* to find relevant stuff in postgres log files. Most instances with some amount of traffic will have non-graceful disconnects (each logging two messages, one "LOG: could not send data to client: Broken pipe" and one "FATAL: connection to client lost"). It's normal to have some amount of constraint violations. Etc. One cannot realistically see LOG or ERROR messages indicating real trouble because we do not provide a realistic way to separate such "normal" log messages from others fairly reliably indicating a problem. > Besides appearing to be unwarranted mockery of what Bharath wrote, Indeed. Greetings, Andres Freund
