Re: Use pgBufferUsage for block reporting in analyze

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 9:36 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, I think we can push 0001 and 0002 patches since they are in
> good shape. I've updated commit messages to them and slightly changed
> 0002 patch to write "finished analyzing of table \"%s.%s.%s\" instead
> of "analyze of table \"%s.%s.%s\".

Wouldn't it make sense to do the same for autoanalyze and write
"finished automatic analyze of table \"%s.%s.%s\"\n" instead of
"automatic analyze of table \"%s.%s.%s\"\n"?

> Also, regarding 0003 patch, what is the main reason why we want to add
> WAL usage to analyze reports? I think that analyze normally does not
> write WAL records much so I'm not sure it's going to provide a good
> insight for users.

There was no strong reason except for consistency with VACUUM VERBOSE
output. But as you said, it's not really providing valuable
information so it's probably better to keep the noise down and drop
it.

Regards,
Anthonin Bonnefoy