Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Date
Msg-id 10546.1132721442@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1  ("Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net>)
List pgsql-general
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
>> LOG:  autovacuum: processing database "foo"

> Also this creates a lot of noise in the log files.  I think it would be
> better to downgrade this message to a NOTICE or even a DEBUG, and
> replace it with a LOG level message that states when action has taken
> place against the table.

I agree that the "processing database" message isn't too exciting, but
it seems that forcing per-table messages up to LOG level would create
even more log clutter.  I could support "processing table" at level
DEBUG1 and "processing database" at DEBUG2.  Or maybe we should think
harder about the idea recently mentioned of letting the autovacuum
process have its own log-level setting, separate from ordinary backends'
setting.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Set Returning Function (Pipelining)
Next
From: "Rick Schumeyer"
Date:
Subject: tsearch2: more than one index per table?