Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive and anti-wraparound ru
Date: 2019-03-09 01:15:37
Message-ID: 20190309011537.GD9266@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 05:05:53PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I notice that this seems never to have been acted on. I think we should
> apply this and remove the (confusing) message setting for the case we'll
> now be avoiding. If not we should at least comment there that this is a
> case we only expect to see in pathological cases.

Sorry for dropping the ball, I would have assumed that Robert would
handle it as he is at the origin of the introduction of the aggressive
option via fd31cd26.

+ elog(DEBUG1, "relation %d has been vacuumd ocncurrently, skip",
The proposed patch has two typos in two words.

I am adding an open item about that. I think I could commit the
patch, but I need to study it a bit more first.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2019-03-09 04:21:12 pgsql: Avoid some table rewrites for ALTER TABLE .. SET DATA TYPE times
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-08 23:52:15 pgsql: Tighten use of OpenTransientFile and CloseTransientFile

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2019-03-09 01:19:43 Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions
Previous Message David Rowley 2019-03-09 01:09:20 Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans