Re: Unifying VACUUM VERBOSE and log_autovacuum_min_duration output

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unifying VACUUM VERBOSE and log_autovacuum_min_duration output
Date: 2021-11-26 23:02:02
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzn81AdLoGyvky14_OfTdAUmvJHqnEHfi50WofJ=nU7GyQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:57 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > * VACUUM VERBOSE doesn't provide much of the most useful
> > instrumentation that we have available in log_autovacuum_min_duration,
> > and yet produces output that is ludicrously, unmanageably verbose --
> > lots of pg_rusage_show() information for each and every step, which
> > just isn't useful.
>
> Not only not useful/unhelpful, but confusing.

Also makes testing harder.

> It's what I complained about here.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20191220171132(dot)GB30414(at)telsasoft(dot)com
>
> I see that lazy_scan_heap() still has a shadow variable buf...

I noticed that myself. That function has had many accretions of code,
over decades. I often notice things that seem like they once made
sense (e.g., before we had HOT), but don't anymore.

I hope to be able to pay down more technical debt in this area for Postgres 15.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-11-26 23:34:21 Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-11-26 22:56:14 Re: Unifying VACUUM VERBOSE and log_autovacuum_min_duration output