Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoAyzO8OzcDa8DgMvFZqp1ar-YP9451t18bZWge3dXsC8g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Ildar Musin wrote: > >> autovac_get_workitem_name() declaration seems redundant and should be >> removed. The same thing with including "utils/lsyscache.h" in brin.c. >> >> The 'requested' variable in brininsert() I would again rename to something >> like 'success' because a work item is requested anyway but what matters is >> whether the request was satisfied/successful. > > Thanks, I pushed this. I agree with your comments; so I changed > 'requested' to 'recorded' and removed those lines. Thank you! >I also reworded the > log message: > > ereport(LOG, > (errcode(ERRCODE_PROGRAM_LIMIT_EXCEEDED), > errmsg("request for BRIN range summarization for index \"%s\" page %u was not recorded", > RelationGetRelationName(idxRel), > lastPageRange))); > > And added a paragraph to the docs explaining this situation. > > Now I'm wondering what will we tell users to do if they get this message > too frequently. Neither of the obvious options (1. changing the index's > pages_per_range to a larger value; 2. making autovacuum more frequent > somehow) seem terribly useful. Or telling users to call brin_summarize_range() manually? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: