Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

Hello,

At Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:20:22 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAB7nPqQ03JrEwKqbc0fWJe9Lt1-fAQc961OWw+Upw9QmRXak0A(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > By the way I'm uneasy that the 'last_vacuum_index_scans' (and
> > vacuum_fail_count in 0002 and others in 0003, 0004) is mentioning
> > both VACUUM command and autovacuum, while last_vacuum and
> > vacuum_count is mentioning only the command. Splitting it into
> > vacuum/autovaccum seems nonsense but the name is confusing. Do
> > you have any idea?
>
> Hm. I think that you should actually have two fields, one for manual
> vacuum and one for autovacuum, because each is tied to respectively
> maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem. This way admins are able

It's very convincing for me. Thanks for the suggestion.

> to tune each one of those parameters depending on a look at
> pg_stat_all_tables. So those should be named perhaps
> last_vacuum_index_scans and last_autovacuum_index_scans?

Agreed. I'll do so in the next version.

# I forgot to add the version to the patch files...

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center