Re: Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log
Date: 2017-08-15 01:51:32
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSMFwuU0qrAHgqRV5N6A3VBB+Q1Gkm19HJLFTkSZUyjmg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log
> message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with
> schema name but subsequent vacuum logs output only relation name
> without schema name. I've encountered a situation where there are some
> same name tables in different schemas and the concurrent vacuum logs
> made me hard to distinguish tables. Is there any reasons why we don't
> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? If not, can we add
> schema names to be more clearly?

That's definitely a good idea. lazy_vacuum_rel() uses in one place
dbname.schname.relname for autovacuum. This is an inconsistent bit,
but that's not really worth changing and there is always
log_line_prefix = '%d'. In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple
of logs that could be improved as well with the schema name.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2017-08-15 01:59:05 Re: [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-08-15 01:37:05 Re: measuring the impact of increasing WAL segment size