On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Andy Colson <a...@squeakycode.net> wrote: >> Taking into account Noah's and Greg's "Displaying accumulated autovacuum >> cost" patch is also sending to logs, do we all now agree that this is proper >> way? > > My general impression of the thread is that nobody really wants to > reject the patch (because we all know that we need a lot more logging > options than we currently have) but at the same time nobody seems > quite certain why someone would want to look at this precise bit of > information. > > I mean, it's already possible to get log messages at the start and end > of a checkpoint, so there's no problem with finding out whether a > checkpoint was in progress at the time something was slow. In fact, > you can even figure out which phase of the checkpoint you were in.
Yes, we need to differentiate between real time and historic information requirements. If the requirement is a historical viewpoint then we already have that. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
