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

Re: log_autovacuum

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum
Date: 2007-04-17 18:25:14
Message-ID: 1176834315.3635.414.camel@silverbirch.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patchespgsql-www
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > >  Maybe something like this is better:
> > > 
> > > LOG: index passes: 1  pages: removed 0, 197 remain  tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain  CPU usage: whatever
> > > CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table "database.public.w"
> > 
> > Yours is better.
> > 
> > I've implemented this:
> > 
> > LOG: autovac "public.w" index passes: 1  pages: removed 0, 197 remain
> > tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain  CPU usage: whatever
> > 
> > I'm happy if this gets removed later, but I think it will help everybody
> > understand how multi-vacuums are working and what the best way to
> > specify the controls should be.
> > 
> > Not sure about the CONTEXT bit. I think its verbose, plus I thought that
> > was for ERRORs only. I will defer on this point, since I know y'all
> > understand that better than I.
> 
> I've tinkered with this patch a bit.  Sample output:
> 
> LOG:  automatic vacuum of table "alvherre.public.foo": index scans: 0
>         pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
>         tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
>         system usage: CPU 0.29s/0.38u sec elapsed 2.56 sec
> 
> Please comment.

Well, 'tis great except when you have very very frequent autovacuums.
That was why I wanted it in 1 log line.

Perhaps we need this as an integer, so we can log all vacuums that last
for longer in seconds than the setting, 0 logs all. That would
significantly reduce the volume if we set it to 5, say. That way you
would get your readability and I would get my reasonable size logs.

I guess we need to see how this interacts with HOT, as well.

Presumably you mean to have both removeds in the same order?
>         pages: 0 removed, 11226 remain
>         tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain


-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-17 18:36:01
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-04-17 18:06:33
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-17 18:36:01
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-04-17 18:06:33
Subject: Re: log_autovacuum

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