| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru |
| Date: | 2019-03-30 01:08:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20190330010822.GL1954@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:22:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Yeah, that looks good to me too. I wonder if we really need it as LOG
> though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the
> min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time?
> Maybe make it DEBUG1.
I think that this does not justify a WARNING, as that's harmless for
the user even if we use WARNING for other skips (see
vacuum_is_relation_owner). However DEBUG1 is also too low in my
opinion as this log can be used as an indicator that autovacuum is too
much aggressive because there are too many workers for example. I
have seen that matter in some CPU-bound environments. I won't fight
hard if the consensus is to use DEBUG1 though. So, more opinions?
Andrew perhaps?
> s/relfroxzenxid/relfrozenxid/
Sure.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-30 06:17:10 | pgsql: Small code simplification for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-29 21:55:19 | pgsql: doc: Small documentation review for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-03-30 01:19:17 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-30 00:40:01 | Re: Unix socket dir, an idea |