On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Naoya Anzai
<anzai-naoya@mxu.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>>> You mean that ...
>>> Log_autovacuum_min_duration assumes a role of VACOPT_VERBOSE.
>>> Even if this parameter never use currently for manual vacuum,
>>> log_autovacuum_min_duration should be set zero(anytime output)
>>> when we executes "VACUUM(or ANALYZE) VERBOSE".
>>> Is my understanding correct? If so,it sounds logical.
>>>
>>
>>Yup, that's my opinion. Now I don't know if people would mind to remove
>>VACOPT_VERBOSE and replace the control it does by log_min_duration in
>>VacuumStmt. At least both things are overlapping, and log_min_duration
>>offers more options than the plain VACOPT_VERBOSE.
>
> OK. I agree with you.
> Please re-implement as you are thinking.
OK will do that today.
>>> If we can abolish VERBOSE option,
>>> I think it's ideal that we will prepare a new parameter like
>>> a log_min_duration_vacuum(and log_min_duration_analyze) which
>>> integrating "VERBOSE feature" and "log_autovacuum_min_duration".
>>>
>>
>>What I think you are proposing here is a VERBOSE option that hypothetically
>>gets activated if a manual VACUUM takes more than a certain amount
>>specified by those parameters. I doubt this would be useful. In any case
>>this is unrelated to this patch.
>
> I suspect manual vacuum often executes as "semi-auto vacuum"
> by job-scheduler, cron, etc in actual maintenance cases.
> Whether auto or manual, I think that's important to output
> their logs in the same mechanism.
>
> Sorry, I seem to have wandered from the subject.
No problem. That's a constructive discussion :)
--
Michael
