Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is autovacuum doing a wraparound-avoiding VACUUM?
Date: 2008-07-18 05:44:38
Message-ID: 10642.1216359878@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I don't like your wording though; it feels too verbose (and you're
>> losing the ANALYZE in case it's doing both things).  How about 
>> 
>> snprintf(activity, MAX_AUTOVAC_ACTIV_LEN,
>> "autovacuum: VACUUM%s%s", vac
>> tab->at_doanalyze ? " ANALYZE" : "",
>> tab->at_wraparound ? " (wraparound)" : "");

> Yes, looks good.

May I suggest "(to prevent wraparound)" or something like that?
Otherwise, +1.

>> You're not proposing it for 8.3 right?

> I think I am. It's an important diagnostic for your other fix.

I agree, this is important for visibility into what's happening.
The string isn't getting translated so I don't see any big downside
to applying the patch in back branches.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2008-07-18 14:56:09
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2008-07-18 01:41:20
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group