Re: Vacuum summary?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum summary?
Date: 2005-07-12 21:53:44
Message-ID: 26861.1121205224@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 12:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> What do you guys think of having a vacuum summary command? E.g.;

> How about putting this in the logfile, without any command changes?

Actually, tying it to VACUUM might not have been such a great idea in
the first place. I think I did that because (a) the info is more likely
to be up to date just after a VACUUM (though when you consider an entire
installation rather than just one DB, this argument has big holes); and
(b) people were already accustomed to seeing a lot of blather from a
VACUUM VERBOSE command.

It'd be relatively easy I think to extract the current FSM statistics
in a function that could be invoked separately from VACUUM. Not sure
how we ought to return 'em though --- the VACUUM way of a bunch of INFO
messages is a bit old-fashioned. Maybe a statistics view?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-07-12 21:56:08 Re: Vacuum summary?
Previous Message xavier.marquis 2005-07-12 21:52:09 SQLException: Cannot be less than zero ( BUG ? )