Hi,
2025-08-21 16:39 に kasaharatt wrote:
> 2025-08-14 17:56 に kasaharatt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2025-08-14 13:26 に Shinya Kato wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:44 PM kasaharatt
>>> <kasaharatt@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>> > Approach 2:
>>>> >>>> > - log_autovacuum_min_duration: Changed behavior, which controls only
>>>> >>>> > autovacuum logging.
>>>> >>>> > - log_autoanalyze_min_duration: New parameter, which controls
>>>> >>>> > autoanalyze logging.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> My vote is for this approach. It is probably OK to change the
>>>> >>>> behavior of
>>>> >>>> log_autovacuum_min_duration, as the new GUC will have the same
>>>> >>>> default
>>>> >>>> value.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thank you for voting. I also think this approach is reasonable to
>>>> >>> implement.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A new patch is attached.
>>>> >> Thoughts?
>>>> I reviewed this patch.
>>>> I also have no particular objections to the Approach 2.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review!
>>>
>>>> > + <term><literal>log_autoanalyze_min_duration</literal>,
>>>> > <literal>toast.log_autoanalyze_min_duration</literal>(<type>integer</type>)
>>>> (snip)
>>>> > + "toast.log_autoanalyze_min_duration",
>>>> This patch adds the log_autoanalyze_min_duration parameter fot TOAST
>>>> tables.
>>>> However since PostgreSQL currently does not support ANALYZE on TOAST
>>>> tables,
>>>> isn't this parameter unnecessary?
>>>
>>> You're right; that was a mistake. I've fixed it in the v4 patch.
>> Thanks for the patch updating.
>>
>>> Additionally, I removed the above setting from the test files in
>>> src/test/modules/xid_wraparound/t/ (001_emergency_vacuum.pl,
>>> 002_limits.pl, 003_wraparounds.pl). The reason is that these tests
>>> check for autovacuum logs, not autoanalyze logs. You can run the test
>>> with the following command:
>>> make check -C src/test/modules/xid_wraparound
>>> PG_TEST_EXTRA='xid_wraparound'
>> Yeah, I agree that.
>>
>> I confirmed this patch could apply to HEAD and all make check tests
>> were passed.
>> I've manually tested it in a few different ways, and it's working as
>> expected so far.
>>
>> Unless there are any objections from others, I think I can mark this
>> patch as "Ready for Committer".
>
> Since there were no particular comments, I've marked it as Ready for
> Committer.
The changes(*) to guc_tables.c have been pushed into HEAD,
so you may need to fix the patch.
(*)
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=63599896545c7869f7dd28cd593e8b548983d613
Best regards,
--
Kasahara Tatsuhito
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
