On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <
sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <
fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Em ter, 23 de jan de 2018 às 03:36, Masahiko Sawada <
sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
> > escreveu:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> While reading the code, I realized that the requesting an autovacuum
> >> work-item could fail in silence if work-item array is full. So the
> >> users cannot realize that work-item is never performed.
> >> AutoVacuumRequestWork() seems to behave so from the initial
> >> implementation but is there any reason of such behavior? It seems to
> >> me that it can be a problem even now that there is only one kind of
> >> work-item. Attached patch for fixing it.
> >
> >
> > Seems reasonable but maybe you can use the word "worker" instead of "work
> > item" for report message.
> >
>
> Thank you for the comment.
> Or can we use the word "work-item" since the commit log and source
> code use this word?
>
You're correct, I misunderstood it thinking about autovacuum workers and not the internal workitem array.
As NUM_WORKITEMS is fixed in 256 we don't have any real feedback if in a real workload this can send a lot of messages to log, so:
1) maybe invent a new GUC to control if we need or not to send this info to log
2) change elevel for DEBUG1
Regards,
