| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Date: | 2014-12-18 13:56:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa=J1TQ3X1WtEw6Gi2xR3UOjkzDfYGc=t_6o1RvGk4Q3w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> LOG: automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.foo": index scans: 0
> pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 pinned
> tuples: 79415 removed, 513156 remain, 0 are dead but not yet
> removable
> buffer usage: 14532 hits, 6 misses, 6241 dirtied
> avg read rate: 0.003 MB/s, avg write rate: 3.413 MB/s
> system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.30u sec elapsed 14.28 sec
>
> I.e. this just says how many pages were pinned, without saying what was done
> about them. That's not very meaningful to an average DBA, but that's true
> for many of the numbers printed in vacuum verbose.
That message is extremely confusing, to my eyes. If you want to say
"pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 skipped due to pins", that would
work for me, but just say "0 pinned" is totally wrong, because vacuum
pinned every page in the table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-18 14:06:12 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-18 13:53:33 | Re: exitArchiveRecovery woes |