From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add log_autovacuum_{vacuum|analyze}_min_duration |
Date: | 2025-06-04 18:53:27 |
Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0tcQY7ACU4EoJn5hwKeH3uz-BKjbOouekdiiptakKR1iA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Approach 2:
> - log_autovacuum_min_duration: Changed behavior, which controls only
> autovacuum logging.
> - log_autoanalyze_min_duration: New parameter, which controls
> autoanalyze logging.
My vote is for this approach. It is probably OK to change the behavior of
log_autovacuum_min_duration, as the new GUC will have the same default
value.
log_autoanalyze_min_duration makes sense, especially since
"autoanalyze" is the term we already use in system views (e.g.,
pg_stat_all_tables.last_autoanalyze). I do not think we need to worry
about consistency with other autovacuum parameters (e.g.,
autovacuum_[vacuum|analyze]_threshold, etc.), because in this case we are
only talking about logging, so we have more flexibility in naming.
Initially, I was not sure if there is a use case in which someone would want
to turn off autovacuum logging but keep autoanalyze logging (or vice versa),
but there may be, and this will be more flexible.
--
Sami Imseih
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-06-04 19:00:03 | Re: gcc 15 "array subscript 0" warning at level -O3 |
Previous Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2025-06-04 18:46:21 | Re: Add --system-identifier / -s option to pg_resetwal |