On Sep 2, 2011 5:02 PM, "Tomas Vondra" <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > > On 2 Září 2011, 15:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On fre, 2011-09-02 at 11:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> What about logging it with a lower level, e.g. NOTICE instead of the > >> current LOG? If that's not a solution then a new GUC is needed I > >> guess. > > > > Changing the log level is not the appropriate solution. Make it a > > configuration parameter. > > Why is it inappropriate solution? There's a log_checkpoints GUC that > drives it and you can either get basic info (summary of the checkpoint) or > detailed log (with a lower log level). > > In the first patch I've proposed a new GUC (used to set how often the info > should be logged or disable it), but Josh Berkus pointed out that I should > get rid of it if I can. Which is what I've done in the following patches.
Well, josh doesn't speak for everybody ;-) Maybe one way could be to change log_checkpoints into an enum of "off, on, debug "(values open for bikeshedding of course) /Magnus
