Thread: Distinguishing autovacuum activity in pg_stat_activity
I was just noticing that $SUBJECT is hard --- the entry in current_query
looks exactly like a manual vacuum command, and there's not anything in
the other fields that looks different either.
Since autovacuum.c is making up its pgstat_report_activity string
anyway, it would be easy to make the string look like, say,AUTO VACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar
I think this would be a helpful change, but some might find it
confusing. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
On Jan 13, 2008 10:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think this would be a helpful change, but some might find it > confusing. Thoughts? If possible, something like: autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar could be less confusing. It's weird to just add AUTO in front of the query. -- Guillaume
Tom Lane wrote: > I was just noticing that $SUBJECT is hard --- the entry in current_query > looks exactly like a manual vacuum command, and there's not anything in > the other fields that looks different either. > > Since autovacuum.c is making up its pgstat_report_activity string > anyway, it would be easy to make the string look like, say, > AUTO VACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar > > I think this would be a helpful change, but some might find it > confusing. Thoughts? I find AUTOVACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar more clear. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >
On Jan 13, 2008 11:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > AUTOVACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar more clear. Doesn't autovacuum also trigger ANALYZE only? That's why I proposed an 'autovacuum:' prefix. -- Guillaume
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Jan 13, 2008 11:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> AUTOVACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar more clear. > > Doesn't autovacuum also trigger ANALYZE only? > > That's why I proposed an 'autovacuum:' prefix. Oh so: autovacuum: vacuum autovacuum: analyze autovacuum: vacuum analyze Yeah that's cool. Joshua D. Drake > > -- > Guillaume >
Guillaume Smet escribió: > On Jan 13, 2008 10:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I think this would be a helpful change, but some might find it > > confusing. Thoughts? > > If possible, something like: > autovacuum: VACUUM ANALYZE foo.bar > could be less confusing. > It's weird to just add AUTO in front of the query. Whether the string is "AUTO " or "autovacuum: " seems rather the same thing to me :-) I agree with the general idea. I think "autovacuum: " makes it clearer that it's not part of the actual command syntax, so maybe I'll put half a vote for that option. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Jan 14, 2008 1:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Whether the string is "AUTO " or "autovacuum: " seems rather the same > thing to me :-) I agree with the general idea. Yeah, forgot to mention I find it a very good idea. -- Guillaume
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Whether the string is "AUTO " or "autovacuum: " seems rather the same
> thing to me :-) I agree with the general idea. I think "autovacuum: "
> makes it clearer that it's not part of the actual command syntax, so
> maybe I'll put half a vote for that option.
Okay by me. Do you want to make the change?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane escribió: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Whether the string is "AUTO " or "autovacuum: " seems rather the same > > thing to me :-) I agree with the general idea. I think "autovacuum: " > > makes it clearer that it's not part of the actual command syntax, so > > maybe I'll put half a vote for that option. > > Okay by me. Do you want to make the change? Will do (early tomorrow) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.