> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2019-Apr-11, rihad wrote: > >> 2019-04-11 19:39:44.450844500 tuples: 19150 removed, 2725811 remain, 465 are dead but not yet removable > > > What Jeff said. This vacuum spent a lot of time, only to remove miserly > > 19k tuples, but 2.7M dead tuples remained ... probably because you have > > long-running transactions preventing vacuum from removing them. > > I think you misread it --- I'm pretty sure "N remain" is referring > to live tuples. Maybe we should adjust the wording to make that > clearer?
Oh, I've been confused with that many times, Not good trying to decode confusing messages while simultaneously figuring out trying to figure out logical decoding bugs that have already been fixed :-(
Yeah, let's reword that. I've had to read the source half a dozen times because I always forget what each number means.
The fact that the output of "vacuum verbose" and "log_autovacuum_min_duration" look so little like each other certainly doesn't help us learn what they mean here. If we are re-wording things, we might want to take a stab at unifying those to some extent. If we just want to do a slight re-wording, I don't know what it would need to look like. "remain" includes live, recently dead, and uncommitted new, and uncommitted old (I think) so we can't just change "recent" to "live".
