On 3/29/19 9:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:22:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yeah, that looks good to me too. I wonder if we really need it as LOG
>> though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the
>> min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time?
>> Maybe make it DEBUG1.
> I think that this does not justify a WARNING, as that's harmless for
> the user even if we use WARNING for other skips (see
> vacuum_is_relation_owner). However DEBUG1 is also too low in my
> opinion as this log can be used as an indicator that autovacuum is too
> much aggressive because there are too many workers for example. I
> have seen that matter in some CPU-bound environments. I won't fight
> hard if the consensus is to use DEBUG1 though. So, more opinions?
> Andrew perhaps?
>
>
It's really just a matter of housekeeping as I see it, so probably
DEBUG1 is right.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
