Re: log_autovacuum
| От | NikhilS |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: log_autovacuum |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | d3c4af540703082229t5b7bdd5ck20e1df3adac757fc@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: log_autovacuum ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-patches |
Hi,
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 3/9/07, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
IMHO, it would be good to have both the messages spit out. The earlier message is much better for parsing and the later makes READABLE sense.
Regards,
Nikhils
-- On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Maybe something like this is better:
>
> LOG: index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
> CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table "database.public.w"
Yours is better.
I've implemented this:
LOG: autovac "public.w" index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain
tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
I'm happy if this gets removed later, but I think it will help everybody
understand how multi-vacuums are working and what the best way to
specify the controls should be.
Not sure about the CONTEXT bit. I think its verbose, plus I thought that
was for ERRORs only. I will defer on this point, since I know y'all
understand that better than I.
IMHO, it would be good to have both the messages spit out. The earlier message is much better for parsing and the later makes READABLE sense.
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: