| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add mode column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-10-07 19:06:53 |
| Message-ID: | aOVkzVpXRvenZZ4T@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 12:45:12PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> The vacuum command detail can now be determined from
> pg_stat_activity.query by joining with pg_stat_progress_vacuum, right?
> I don't see why this is not sufficient, especially because it already
> indicates how the vacuum was triggered, and the autovacuum activity
> message also tells you why it was triggered. We could perhaps add "due to
> failsafe" to the autovacuum activity message to explicitly show that reason.
Eh, IMHO requiring users to look for a certain substring in the query field
doesn't seem especially user-friendly to me. (I was going to point out
that it's undocumented, too, but it is in fact documented [0].)
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/routine-vacuuming.html#AUTOVACUUM
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-10-07 19:15:02 | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
| Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2025-10-07 19:06:32 | Re: split func.sgml to separated individual sgml files |