On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> But if this is generating a lot of log data or adding a lot of >>> overhead, then you have bigger problems anyway: >>> >>> + elog(DEBUG1, "Unable to forward fsync request, executing >>> directly"); >>> >> >> The argument against this log line even existing is that if the field is >> added to pg_stat_bgwriter, that's probably how you want to monitor this data >> anyway. > > I'll remove it if you really want it gone, but personally I think it's > useful to have. I've more than once had to debug a problem given a > PostgreSQL log file with the debug level cranked up and not a whole > lot else. Rare events that cause performance to tank are worth > logging, IMHO. > >> I started out touching code that called it just "sync", but then crossed to >> other code that called it "fsync", and made the external UI use that name. >> No objections to sorting that out within my patch so it's consistent. > > OK, I'll do that before I commit it.
Committed with (I think) all the changes discussed, plus a catversion bump. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
