Larry Rosenman wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:28:21PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> Since both vacuum and autovacuum will be cutting stats records, do
>>> we want to just have the autovacuum
>>> stats record have the fact that it was autovacuum that did the
>>> vacuum?
>>>
>>> Or, is there a way when vacuum is run by autovacuum that I can get a
>>> flag to set that says this (vacuum|analyze) was done by the
>>> autovacuum daemon?
>>>
>>> I agree that the existing stats calls are good, but I'm still
>>> reading code to see whether I can determine
>>> at the time they are cut that this was autovacuum that did it.
>>
>> I think noting autovac vacuums/analyzes seperately is
pg-dev/vacuum-time-patch-WIP.txt'nice-to-have'
>> but not all that important. It'd probably be pretty easy to tell the
>> difference just knowing what (if any) manual vacuums your system
>> runs.
>>
>> While we're looking at logging, are you going to add stats stuff for
>> the bgwriter as well, or should we add this to the TODO?
>
> I was going to do that after I got some comfort with what I'm doing
> here.
I've put a WIP patch up for comments:
http://www.lerctr.org/~ler/pg-dev/vacuum-time-patch-WIP.txt
this is *NOT* for application, as I still need to add access to the new
fields to
the views, etc.
I'm looking to get comments on it.
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
