Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSMFwuU0qrAHgqRV5N6A3VBB+Q1Gkm19HJLFTkSZUyjmg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log
> message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with
> schema name but subsequent vacuum logs output only relation name
> without schema name. I've encountered a situation where there are some
> same name tables in different schemas and the concurrent vacuum logs
> made me hard to distinguish tables. Is there any reasons why we don't
> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? If not, can we add
> schema names to be more clearly?

That's definitely a good idea. lazy_vacuum_rel() uses in one place
dbname.schname.relname for autovacuum. This is an inconsistent bit,
but that's not really worth changing and there is always
log_line_prefix = '%d'. In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple
of logs that could be improved as well with the schema name.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] measuring the impact of increasing WAL segment size
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks