On 08.11.2024 22:34, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
>> On Nov 2, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Alena Rybakina
>> <a(dot)rybakina(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>
>>>> The second is the interrupts field. It is needed for monitoring to know
>>>> do we have them or not, so tracking them on the database level will do
>>>> the trick. Interrupt is quite rare event, so once the monitoring system
>>>> will catch one the DBA can go to the server log for the details.
>>> Just to confirm… by “interrupt” you mean vacuum encountered an error?
>> Yes it is.
> In that case I feel rather strongly that we should label that as
> “errors”. “Interrupt” could mean a few different things, but “error”
> is very clear.
>>
>> I updated patches. I excluded system and user time statistics and
>> save number of interrupts only for database.I removed the ability to
>> get statistics for all tables, now they can only be obtained for an
>> oid table [0], as suggested here. I also renamed the statistics from
>> pg_stat_vacuum_tables to pg_stat_get_vacuum_tables and similarly for
>> indexes and databases. I noticed that that’s what they’re mostly
>> called. Ready for discussion.
>>
> I think it’s better that the views follow the existing naming
> conventions (which don’t include “_get_”; only the functions have that
> in their names). Assuming that, the only question becomes
> pg_stat_vacuum_* vs pg_stat_*_vacuum. Given the existing precedent of
> pg_statio_*, I’m inclined to go with pg_stat_vacuum_*.
I have fixed it.
--
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Postgres Professional