From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Buildfarm failure from overly noisy warning message |
Date: | 2015-07-27 14:22:32 |
Message-ID: | 18647993.2978836.1438006952544.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think a LOG entry when an autovacuum process is actually canceled
>> has value just in case it is happening on a particular table so
>> frequently that the table starts to bloat. I see no reason to log
>> anything if there is an intention to cancel an autovacuum process
>> but it actually completes before we can do so.
> Hm. By that logic, I'm not sure if we need anything to be logged here,
> because the autovacuum process will log something about having received
> a query cancel signal.
That seems sufficient to me for normal cases.
> If we're in the business of minimizing log chatter, I'd suggest that
> we remove the entirely-routine "sending cancel" log message, and only
> log something in the uncommon case where the kill() fails (but, per
> original point, reduce that entry to LOG or so; or else print something
> only for not-ESRCH cases).
+1 for only printing for the non-ESRCH cases.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-27 14:28:47 | Re: Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-07-27 14:15:58 | Re: Failing assertions in indxpath.c, placeholder.c and brin_minmax.c |