| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add mode column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-10-16 05:17:15 |
| Message-ID: | aPB_24M2xvzq4DTU@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:07:17AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> IIUC are you suggesting I add such a last_autovacuum_reason column to
>> pg_stat_all_tables, which would be populated with one of the following
>> values?
>> - autovacuum_vacuum_threshold
>> - autovacuum_vacuum_insert_threshold
>> - autovacuum_freeze_max_age
>> - autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age
>
> This should be a separate discussion. But, I would think the
> counters will be n_aggressive, n_wraparound and n_failsafe.
Depends, I guess (separate discussion it should be, but I count not
resist). If you had this information available in the cumulative
stats, what should be a "correct" set of numbers, and what could be
tuned to redirect the system so as it gets to a better set of numbers.
Wraparound autovacuums, for one, don't seem really relevant
to know about in an aggregated way.
Coming back to the original proposal. Knowing about the state we are
kicking an autovacuum worker job for a set of tables in the progress
view would be definitely a nice thing.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-16 05:38:19 | Re: Preserve index stats during ALTER TABLE ... TYPE ... |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-16 05:06:01 | Re: Preserve index stats during ALTER TABLE ... TYPE ... |