Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> At Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:20:22 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqQ03JrEwKqbc0fWJe9Lt1-fAQc961OWw+Upw9QmRXak0A@mail.gmail.com>
>> 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
>
> It's very convincing for me. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
>> 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?
>
> Agreed. I'll do so in the next version.

Thanks for considering the suggestion.

> # I forgot to add the version to the patch files...

Don't worry about that. That's not a problem for me I'll just keep
track of the last entry. With the room I have I'll keep focused on
0001 by the way. Others are of course welcome to look at 0002 and
onwards.
-- 
Michael