On 10/20/14, 7:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-20 19:18:31 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
>In the meantime, I think it's worth adding this logging. If in fact this
basically never happens (the current assumption), it doesn't hurt anything. If it
turns out our assumption is wrong, then we'll actually be able to fin> that out.:)
It does happen, and not infrequently. Just not enough pages to normally
cause significant bloat. The most likely place where it happens is very
small tables that all connections hit with a high frequency. Starting to
issue high volume log spew for a nonexistant problem isn't helping.
How'd you determine that? Is there some way to measure this? I'm not doubting
you; I just don't want to work on a problem that's already solved.
If you're super convinced this is urgent then add it as a*single*
datapoint inside the existing messages. But I think there's loads of
stuff in vacuum logging that are more important this.
See my original proposal; at it's most intrusive this would issue one warning
per (auto)vacuum if it was over a certain threshold. I would think that a DBA
would really like to know when this happens, but if we think that's too much
spew we can limit it to normal vacuum logging.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
