From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |
Date: | 2006-04-27 18:03:56 |
Message-ID: | 4451078C.5010809@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
I think there are two things people typically want to know from the logs:
1) Is autovacuum running
2) Did autovacuum take action (issue a VACUUM or ANALYZE)
I don't think we need mention the name of each and every database we
touch, we can, but it should be at a lower level like DEBUG1 or something.
I don't know what logging level these thing should go at, but I for one
would like them to be fairly high easy to get to, perhaps NOTICE?
Matt
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
>>> Change log message about vacuuming database name from LOG to DEBUG1.
>>> Prevents duplicate meaningless log messsages.
>> Could we have some discussion about this sort of thing, rather than
>> unilateral actions?
>>
>> Those messages were at LOG level because otherwise it's difficult to be
>> sure from the log that autovac is running at all.
>
> OK, so what do we want to do? Clearly outputing something everytime
> pg_autovacuum touches a database isn't ideal. By default, the server
> logs should show significant events, which this is not.
>
> Do we want something output only the first time autovacuum runs?
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-27 18:24:35 | pgsql: Fix ltreeparentsel so it actually works ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-27 17:52:40 | pgsql: Generalize mcv_selectivity() to support both VAR OP CONST and |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-27 18:32:39 | Re: Logging pg_autovacuum |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-04-27 17:52:54 | Re: ANSI-strict pointer aliasing rules |