Re: Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bharath Rupireddy |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto |
Date | |
Msg-id | CALj2ACUamYVKZ2qYTsaJJ7+8AT2R5j9oATG8SXyksE9eyxE3+A@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto
Re: Isn't it better with "autovacuum worker...." instead of "worker took too long to start; canceled" specific to "auto |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:41 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > At Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:26:11 -0500, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote in > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 07:05:10PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > > > > > My vote is to just change it to > > > > > > > > > > ereport(WARNING, > > > > > (errmsg("autovacuum worker took too long to start; canceled"))); > > > > > > > > > > and call it a day. If we wanted to add errdetail(), I think we should > > > > > make sure it is providing useful context, but I'm not sure what that > > > > > might look like. > > > > > > > > I think that's fine. > > > > > > +1 > > > > Done. > > > > > > Note that the backend_type is illuminating for those who use CSV logs, or use > > > > P13+ and log_line_prefix += %b (see 70a7b4776). > > > > > > > > session_line | 1 > > > > error_severity | WARNING > > > > message | worker took too long to start; canceled > > > > backend_type | autovacuum launcher > > > > > > Yeah, the additional "autovacuum" is not noisy at all even in that > > > context. Some other messages are prefixed with "autovacuum". > > > > > > "could not fork autovacuum worker process: %m" > > > "autovacuum worker started without a worker entry" > > > > > > By a quick look all occurances of "laucher" are prefixed with > > > "autovacuum" or "logical replcaion", which seems fine. > > > > > > As a related topic, autovacuum.c has another use of bare "worker"s. > > > > > > > tmpcxt = AllocSetContextCreate(CurrentMemoryContext, > > > > "Start worker tmp cxt", > > > > ALLOCSET_DEFAULT_SIZES); > > > > > > > AutovacMemCxt = AllocSetContextCreate(TopMemoryContext, > > > > "AV worker", > > > > ALLOCSET_DEFAULT_SIZES); > > > > > > I'm not sure the former needs to be fixed, but the latter is actually > > > visible to users via pg_log_backend_memory_contexts(). > > > > > > LOG: level: 1; AV worker: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (0 chunks); 264 used > > > > Good catch. I've seen the use of "AV" in some of the mem context > > names, why that? Let's be specific and say "Autovacuum". Attached > > patch does that. Please review it. > > +1. The patch looks good to me too. Thanks all for reviewing this. Here's the CF entry - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3378/ Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
pgsql-hackers by date: