From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Report checkpoint progress in server logs
In-reply-to: 
 <CABUevEyX6-NSnhMhWzicg_PpmF52Fv_Zm7tgLT+9iDAO4W8Ftg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALj2ACV-F+K+z+XW8fnK4MV71qz2gzAMxFnYziRgZURMB5ycAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABUevEyX6-NSnhMhWzicg_PpmF52Fv_Zm7tgLT+9iDAO4W8Ftg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
	message dated "Wed, 29 Dec 2021 15:35:40 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2031845.1640792459.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 10:40:59 -0500
Message-ID: <2031846.1640792459@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2031846.1640792459%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Therefore, reporting the checkpoint progress in the server logs, much
>> like [1], seems to be the best way IMO.

> I find progress reporting in the logfile to generally be a terrible
> way of doing things, and the fact that we do it for the startup
> process is/should be only because we have no other choice, not because
> it's the right choice.

I'm already pretty seriously unhappy about the log-spamming effects of
64da07c41 (default to log_checkpoints=on), and am willing to lay a side
bet that that gets reverted after we have some field experience with it.
This proposal seems far worse from that standpoint.  Keep in mind that
our out-of-the-box logging configuration still doesn't have any log
rotation ability, which means that the noisier the server is in normal
operation, the sooner you fill your disk.

> I think the right choice to solve the *general* problem is the
> mentioned pg_stat_progress_checkpoints.

+1

			regards, tom lane