Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums
Date: 2017-11-26 17:49:53
Message-ID: 16915.1511718593@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... Would you think
> that it is acceptable to add the number of index scans that happened
> with the verbose output then?

I don't have an objection to it, but can't you tell that from VACUUM
VERBOSE already? There should be a "INFO: scanned index" line for
each scan.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2017-11-26 17:53:14 Re: has_sequence_privilege() never got the memo
Previous Message Юрий Соколов 2017-11-26 16:51:52 Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance degradation of contended LWLock on NUMA