Simon Riggs escribió:
> Sorry to come in on late on this: That wording is better, but it still
> doesn't explain why it has occurred or what the user should do about it.
> I think we will get other complaints saying "why has my autovacuum been
> canceled?" and "what should I do about this?".
>
> Perhaps it should be
> "canceling autovacuum task; will reschedule when user tasks complete"
> or
> "autovacuum canceled temporarily to allow user task to proceed"
>
> or something that explains that what has happened is a good thing and
> the task that has been canceled will be automatically re-tried.
Perhaps the added phrase could be put in a errdetail() or something like
that. The problem is detecting that this is really the case. How would
it know that it wasn't user-inflicted?
--
Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"Las navajas y los monos deben estar siempre distantes" (Germán Poo)
