On 2015-01-04 01:53:24 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >Ah, interesting, I didn't remember we had that. I guess one possible
> > >tweak is to discount the pages we skip from pinned_pages; or we could
> > >keep a separate count of pages waited for. Jim, up for a patch?
>
> This is still wrong. I think just counting skipped pages, without
> distinct messages for waiting/not waiting, is good enough for
> now. Everything else would only be actually meaningful if we actually
> tracked the waiting time.
Pushed a commit for this, with additional improvements to autovacuum's
log output from:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.frak": index scans: 0
pages: 0 removed, 1672 remain
skipped 1 pages due to buffer pins
tuples: 0 removed, 309959 remain, 309774 are dead but not yet removable
buffer usage: 4258 hits, 0 misses, 0 dirtied
avg read rate: 0.000 MB/s, avg write rate: 0.000 MB/s
system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.04u sec elapsed 0.46 sec
to:
LOG: automatic vacuum of table "postgres.public.frak": index scans: 0
pages: 0 removed, 1672 remain, 1 skipped due to pins
tuples: 0 removed, 309959 remain, 309774 are dead but not yet removable
buffer usage: 4258 hits, 0 misses, 0 dirtied
avg read rate: 0.000 MB/s, avg write rate: 0.000 MB/s
system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.04u sec elapsed 0.46 sec
as the 'skipped ...' line didn't really look in line with the rest.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
