On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If that were true I'd agree with you, but it's false on its face. > A user who is actually examining the statistics might well want to > know if they're significantly out of date. A very relevant example > is that I've always wondered how come, when we see buildfarm failures > in the "stats" regression test, they always appear in the form of > output differences that indicate that the session did not see the > expected stats update --- but there's never a timeout warning printed, > which indicates that whatever the cause is, it ain't that.
Sure, but nobody who is not a developer is going to care about that. A typical user who sees "pgstat wait timeout", or doesn't, isn't going to be able to make anything at all out of that. > I'd be fine with changing the warning to LOG level rather than > suppressing it entirely for the specific case of pgstat_vacuum_stat; > but I do want to distinguish that case, wherein it's fair to conclude > that obsolete stats aren't too worrisome, from other cases where no > such conclusion is justified. But I can live with this compromise. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
