On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 14:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Maybe something like this is better:
> > >
> > > LOG: index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
> > > CONTEXT: Automatic vacuuming of table "database.public.w"
> >
> > Yours is better.
> >
> > I've implemented this:
> >
> > LOG: autovac "public.w" index passes: 1 pages: removed 0, 197 remain
> > tuples: removed 7199, 2338 remain CPU usage: whatever
> >
> > I'm happy if this gets removed later, but I think it will help everybody
> > understand how multi-vacuums are working and what the best way to
> > specify the controls should be.
> >
> > Not sure about the CONTEXT bit. I think its verbose, plus I thought that
> > was for ERRORs only. I will defer on this point, since I know y'all
> > understand that better than I.
>
> I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
>
> LOG: automatic vacuum of table "alvherre.public.foo": index scans: 0
> pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
> tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
> system usage: CPU 0.29s/0.38u sec elapsed 2.56 sec
>
> Please comment.
Well, 'tis great except when you have very very frequent autovacuums.
That was why I wanted it in 1 log line.
Perhaps we need this as an integer, so we can log all vacuums that last
for longer in seconds than the setting, 0 logs all. That would
significantly reduce the volume if we set it to 5, say. That way you
would get your readability and I would get my reasonable size logs.
I guess we need to see how this interacts with HOT, as well.
Presumably you mean to have both removeds in the same order?
> pages: 0 removed, 11226 remain
> tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
