Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands
Date: 2017-09-29 01:44:19
Message-ID: 21655.1506649459@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:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> Alright, I've added logging for autovacuum in v23. I ended up needing to
>> do a little restructuring to handle the case when the relation was skipped
>> because the lock could not be obtained. While doing so, I became
>> convinced that LOG was probably the right level for autovacuum logs.

> OK, of course let's not change the existing log levels. This could be
> always tuned later on depending on feedback from others. I can see
> that guc.c also uses elevel == 0 for some logic, so we could rely on
> that as you do.

FWIW, I don't think this patch should be mucking with logging behavior
at all; that's not within its headline charter, and I doubt many people
are paying attention. I propose to commit it without that. If you feel
hot about changing the logging behavior, you can resubmit that as a new
patch in a new thread where it will get some visibility and debate on
its own merits.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-29 01:45:43 Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-09-29 01:33:11 Re: Partitions: \d vs \d+