| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto |
| Date: | 2021-10-27 16:26:37 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACX2UHp76dqdoZq92a7v4APFuV5wJQ+AUrb+2HURrKN=NQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Is there a specific reason that we have a generic WARNING "worker took
too long to start; canceled" for an autovacuum worker? Isn't it better
with "autovacuum worker took too long to start; canceled"? It is
confusing to see the generic message in the server logs while
debugging an issue for a user who doesn't know the internals of
autovacuum code.
To be more informative about the message, how about the following:
1) ereport(WARNING,
(errmsg( "worker took too long to start"),
errdetail("Previous attempt to start autovacuum
worker was failed, canceled.")));
or
2) ereport(WARNING,
(errmsg( "worker took too long to start, canceled"),
errdetail("The postmaster couldn't start an
autovacuum worker.")));
or
3) ereport(WARNING,
(errmsg( "worker took too long to start, canceled"),
errdetail("Previous attempt to start autovacuum
worker was failed.")));
or
4) elog(WARNING, "postmaster couldn't start an autovacuum worker");
Thoughts?
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2021-10-27 16:26:56 | [PATCH] remove is_member_of_role() from header, add can_set_role() |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-10-27 16:14:45 | Re: allowing "map" for password auth methods with clientcert=verify-full |