Hello, At Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:20:22 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <cab7npqq03jrewkqbc0fwje9lt1-faqc961oww+upw9qmrxa...@mail.gmail.com> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > By the way I'm uneasy that the 'last_vacuum_index_scans' (and > > vacuum_fail_count in 0002 and others in 0003, 0004) is mentioning > > both VACUUM command and autovacuum, while last_vacuum and > > vacuum_count is mentioning only the command. Splitting it into > > vacuum/autovaccum seems nonsense but the name is confusing. Do > > you have any idea? > > Hm. I think that you should actually have two fields, one for manual > vacuum and one for autovacuum, because each is tied to respectively > maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem. This way admins are able
It's very convincing for me. Thanks for the suggestion. > to tune each one of those parameters depending on a look at > pg_stat_all_tables. So those should be named perhaps > last_vacuum_index_scans and last_autovacuum_index_scans? Agreed. I'll do so in the next version. # I forgot to add the version to the patch files... regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center