trace_recovery_messages

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:

We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?

No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.

Currently it's always
available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.

Where? I don't see very many messages that would actually get emitted
at the default setting of the parameter.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:

We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?

No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.

Currently it's always
available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.

Where?  I don't see very many messages that would actually get emitted
at the default setting of the parameter.

Yes. I was just concerned that frequent calls themselves may increase
the overhead.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 10:20 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:

We should make trace_recovery_messages available only when
the WAL_DEBUG macro was defined?

No, because it's used in a lot of other contexts besides that.

Currently it's always
available, so the standby seems to call elog() too frequently.

Where? I don't see very many messages that would actually get emitted
at the default setting of the parameter.

Yes. I was just concerned that frequent calls themselves may increase
the overhead.

Please share your oprofile output so we can see the problem.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services