| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Distinguishing autovacuum activity in pg_stat_activity |
| Date: | 2008-01-13 22:27:48 |
| Message-ID: | 478A9064.3050001@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I was just noticing that $SUBJECT is hard --- the entry in current_query
> looks exactly like a manual vacuum command, and there's not anything in
> the other fields that looks different either.
>
> Since autovacuum.c is making up its pgstat_report_activity string
> anyway, it would be easy to make the string look like, say,
> AUTO VACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar
>
> I think this would be a helpful change, but some might find it
> confusing. Thoughts?
I find
AUTOVACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar more clear.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-13 22:38:48 | Re: Distinguishing autovacuum activity in pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2008-01-13 22:14:34 | Re: Index trouble with 8.3b4 |