Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users >> to know, rather than merely "we should expose every conceivable detail >> by default". Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a >> specific table, which we already do expose?
> You need to connect to every database to do that. If you have many > databases, that's a lot of overhead particularly if you're doing tihs > for regular monitoring. Plus, those views will only track when > autovacuum actually *did* something. Well, the last-launch-time doesn't prove that autovacuum actually *did* something ;-). > Being able to see that autovacuum hasn't even touched a database for > too long would be an early-indicator that you have some issues with > it. With the current AV launch algorithm, unless you have very serious system-wide issues there will be a worker launched into each database approximately every autovacuum_naptime seconds. AFAICS this does not tell you anything interesting about whether AV is getting its work done. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers