From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
Cc: | "'Matthew T(dot) O'Connor'" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |
Date: | 2006-08-17 21:33:44 |
Message-ID: | 20060817213343.GG318@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>>> Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Any chance we can make this change before release? I think it's
> >>>>> very important to be able to look through the logs and *know*
> >>>>> that you tables are getting vacuumed or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed. I just IM'ed Alvaro and he says pg_stat_activity should
> >>>> now show exactly what autovacuum is doing (and if it doesn't,
> >>>> let's fix it). I think that is the best solution to the monitoring
> >>>> problem, rather than throwing lines in the server logs.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure I agree with this. I can use the pg_stat_activity
> >>> table to see if autovacuum is doing something right now, but what I
> >>> want to be able to do is look through my logs and see that
> >>> table_foo hasn't been vacuumed since last week, or that table_bar
> >>> has been vacuumed 7 times today. Can I do that just with the stat
> >>> system alone?
> >>
> >> Actually Larry just reminded us that you can use pg_stat_all_tables
> >> to see that information. However I'm testing it and it doesn't seem
> >> to work for all tables ... strange. I'll have a look.
> >
> > Nevermind -- it's just that if you vacuum a table which you haven't
> > touched (insert, update, delete) since the last stats reset, then the
> > vacuum info isn't recorded because we refuse to create the pgstat
> > entry for the table.
>
> Do I need to write a Doc patch for that? It seemed consistent with other
> functions of the
> same class when I did the date patch.
I'm not sure. It just makes sense overall ... the fact that the
collector chooses to discard some info should be documented somewhere I
think (maybe it already is, I don't know), but not specifically for the
vacuum times.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-17 22:29:26 | Can I assume there's only one _RETURN rule? |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2006-08-17 21:29:04 | Re: Autovacuum on by default? |