On 10/20/14, 7:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-10-20 19:18:31 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> >In the meantime, I think it's worth adding this logging. If in fact this basically never happens (the current
assumption),it doesn't hurt anything. If it turns out our assumption is wrong, then we'll actually be able to fin> that
out.:)
> It does happen, and not infrequently. Just not enough pages to normally
> cause significant bloat. The most likely place where it happens is very
> small tables that all connections hit with a high frequency. Starting to
> issue high volume log spew for a nonexistant problem isn't helping.
How'd you determine that? Is there some way to measure this? I'm not doubting you; I just don't want to work on a
problemthat's already solved.
> If you're super convinced this is urgent then add it as a*single*
> datapoint inside the existing messages. But I think there's loads of
> stuff in vacuum logging that are more important this.
See my original proposal; at it's most intrusive this would issue one warning per (auto)vacuum if it was over a certain
threshold.I would think that a DBA would really like to know when this happens, but if we think that's too much spew we
canlimit it to normal vacuum logging.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
