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

On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 9:41 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 12:23 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Having "marked by this operation" twice seems to be redundant. How
> > about something like the output below?
> >
> > visibility map: %u pages set all-visible (%u pages total), %u pages
> > set all-frozen (%u pages total)
>
> For me, the meaning of that isn't clear.
>
> I think this is the wrong direction, anyway. If someone says "hey, we
> should add X to the output" and someone else says "we should add Y
> instead," it doesn't follow that the right thing to do is to add both.
> I happen to think that the right answer is X, both because X of my
> understanding of the purpose of this log message, and also because X
> is in the service of Melanie's larger goal and Y is not. But I also
> feel like bikeshedding the patch that somebody should have written
> instead of reviewing the one they actually wrote is to be avoided. Of
> course, sometimes there's no getting around the fact that the person
> chose to do something that didn't really make sense, and then it's
> reasonable to suggest alternatives. But here, what was actually done
> does make sense and is the first choice of some people. What is
> proposed can be added now, provided that it actually gets some review,
> and the other thing can be added later if someone wants to do the work
> and if no problems are discovered, but it isn't Melanie's job to add
> data that isn't needed for her project.

Agreed.

I think we agreed with what the patches proposed by Melanie do, so
let's focus on these patches on this thread. We can add other
information later if we need.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com