Re: Count and log pages set all-frozen by vacuum

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alastair Turner <minion(at)decodable(dot)me>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Count and log pages set all-frozen by vacuum
Date: 2024-10-31 15:56:41
Message-ID: CA+TgmobcArUTo0d01wQV0mJ-=doU6LyNdUVaq_GuDU7QCKtF9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:15 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Probably not, but I don't think that it's worth worrying about. ISTM
> that it's inevitable that somebody might get confused whenever we
> expose implementation details such as these. This particular example
> doesn't seem particularly concerning to me.

+1. We could possibly make this less confusing by reworking the output
so that we first talk about what the vacuuming did in one set of log
lines and then talk about what the truncation did afterward. But
that's a lot of work, and I don't feel like it's "must do" work.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alastair Turner 2024-10-31 15:56:46 Re: Count and log pages set all-frozen by vacuum
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2024-10-31 15:51:13 Re: minor doc issue in 9.16.2.1.1. Boolean Predicate Check Expressions