Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

From: Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Date: 2015-05-13 19:07:35
Message-ID: CAD21AoCvghQ3LithAFWaum61U-qZcgG5ZfSomTG4YZiwVoSTBQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Uh, are we really using INFO to log this? I thought that was a
> discouraged level to use anymore. Why not NOTICE?
>

I think it should be INFO level because it is a information of REINDEX
command,such as progress of itself, CPU usage and so on. it would be
overkill if we output the logs as NOTICE level, and verbose outputs of
other maintenance command are emitted as INFO level.

> Also, when multiple tables are reindexed, do we emit lines for each
> index, or only for each table? If we're going to emit a line for each
> index in the single-table mode, it seems more sensible to do the same
> for the multi-table forms also.
>

I agree that we emit lines for each table when we do reindex multiple tables.
The latest patch is attached.

Regards,

-------
Sawada Masahiko

Attachment Content-Type Size
000_reindex_verbose_v15.patch application/octet-stream 15.5 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-05-13 19:16:15 Re: KNN-GiST with recheck
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-05-13 18:44:50 Re: Abbreviated keys for Datum tuplesort (was: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization))