From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time
In-reply-to: 
 <CAMkU=1xJW8e+CTotojOMBd-yzUvD0e_JZu2xHo=MnuZ4__m7Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18444.1498428798@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAB7nPqTWWBEZ6NN_pbgmU=yn-HZNKGY3nAivvLSuLPe61n1KJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <24992.1498504537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMkU=1xJW8e+CTotojOMBd-yzUvD0e_JZu2xHo=MnuZ4__m7Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:06:44 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18519.1498508356.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:19:16 -0400
Message-ID: <18520.1498508356@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> The 10 fold increase in log spam during long PITR recoveries is a bit
> unfortunate.

> 9153  2017-06-26 12:55:40.243 PDT FATAL:  the database system is starting up
> 9154  2017-06-26 12:55:40.345 PDT FATAL:  the database system is starting up
> 9156  2017-06-26 12:55:40.447 PDT FATAL:  the database system is starting up
> 9157  2017-06-26 12:55:40.550 PDT FATAL:  the database system is starting up
> ...

> I can live with it, but could we use an escalating wait time so it slows
> back down to once a second after a while?

Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers