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
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 |