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

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "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 14:33:18
Message-ID: 2CF97AEA-1F9B-49D6-8CF9-6260D2EE49AA@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/28/17, 10:05 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/28/17, 8:46 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Okay. I am fine with that as well.
>
> Sure, that seems reasonable to me.

Here's a version without the logging changes in vacuum_rel() and
analyze_rel(). I’ll look into submitting those in the next commitfest.

Nathan

Attachment Content-Type Size
vacuum_multiple_tables_v24.patch application/octet-stream 27.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-09-29 14:45:49 Re: Multicolumn hash indexes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-09-29 14:19:54 Re: The case for removing replacement selection sort