Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa=J1TQ3X1WtEw6Gi2xR3UOjkzDfYGc=t_6o1RvGk4Q3w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> LOG:  automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.foo": index scans: 0
>         pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 pinned
>         tuples: 79415 removed, 513156 remain, 0 are dead but not yet
> removable
>         buffer usage: 14532 hits, 6 misses, 6241 dirtied
>         avg read rate: 0.003 MB/s, avg write rate: 3.413 MB/s
>         system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.30u sec elapsed 14.28 sec
>
> I.e. this just says how many pages were pinned, without saying what was done
> about them. That's not very meaningful to an average DBA, but that's true
> for many of the numbers printed in vacuum verbose.

That message is extremely confusing, to my eyes.  If you want to say
"pages: 0 removed, 7256 remain, 0 skipped due to pins", that would
work for me, but just say "0 pinned" is totally wrong, because vacuum
pinned every page in the table.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: exitArchiveRecovery woes
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL