From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
Date: | 2014-12-18 17:38:12 |
Message-ID: | 54931104.3020507@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/14, 7:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> LOG: automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.foo": index scans: 0
>> pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 pinned
>> tuples: 79415 removed, 513156 remain, 0 are dead but not yet
>> removable
>> buffer usage: 14532 hits, 6 misses, 6241 dirtied
>> avg read rate: 0.003 MB/s, avg write rate: 3.413 MB/s
>> system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.30u sec elapsed 14.28 sec
>>
>> I.e. this just says how many pages were pinned, without saying what was done
>> about them. That's not very meaningful to an average DBA, but that's true
>> for many of the numbers printed in vacuum verbose.
>
> That message is extremely confusing, to my eyes. If you want to say
> "pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 skipped due to pins", that would
> work for me, but just say "0 pinned" is totally wrong, because vacuum
> pinned every page in the table.
We have to decide on a tradeoff here. Either we end up with two different log messages (depending on scan_all) that require two different translations, or we end up with a generic message that isn't as clear.
The best option I can think of for the later is something like "failed initial lock attempt". That's the only thing that will be true in all cases.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-12-18 17:58:35 | Re: NUMERIC private methods? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-12-18 17:31:36 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |