Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> By the way I'm uneasy that the 'last_vacuum_index_scans' (and
> vacuum_fail_count in 0002 and others in 0003, 0004) is mentioning
> both VACUUM command and autovacuum, while last_vacuum and
> vacuum_count is mentioning only the command. Splitting it into
> vacuum/autovaccum seems nonsense but the name is confusing. Do
> you have any idea?

Hm. I think that you should actually have two fields, one for manual
vacuum and one for autovacuum, because each is tied to respectively
maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem. This way admins are able
to tune each one of those parameters depending on a look at
pg_stat_all_tables. So those should be named perhaps
last_vacuum_index_scans and last_autovacuum_index_scans?
-- 
Michael