| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Larry Rosenman" <lrosenman(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |
| Date: | 2006-04-28 20:16:22 |
| Message-ID: | 15756.1146255382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> The first is to add a column(s) to pg_class to hold last vaccum/analyze time
> for each table.
I really don't want us to do that. relpages/reltuples are already an
ugly wart. The fundamental problem with this (or indeed any of the
various proposals for "let's make vacuum store results someplace")
is that vacuum is supposed to *clean up* dead rows. Not make more.
We don't want a pass of autovacuum to leave pg_class in a desperately-
needs-vacuumed-again state.
> The second is to add a "verbosity level" to pg_autovacuum for each table, to
> allow admins to configure specific tables for a more verbose logging.
No fundamental objection, but I can't really see the need either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-28 20:18:15 | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-28 20:15:36 | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |