| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Process title for autovac |
| Date: | 2013-04-06 21:10:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20130406211049.GB3751@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes escribió:
> Is this functionality something we want? If so should it include explicit
> vacuum as well as autovac?
Yes. No.
> Any opinion about where in the code base it
> properly belongs (which obviously depends on whether it should cover manual
> vacuum as well)? And does the string need to distinguish between an
> autovac and an autoanalyze?
autovacuum_do_vac_analyze() is probably the place to add it. I think we
should include the wraparound, dovacuum and doanalyze flags in there
somehow, yes.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2013-04-06 23:49:01 | pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-04-06 20:20:51 | Process title for autovac |