On 04/03/2016 23:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Julien Rouhaud
> <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> Very good suggestion.
>> I think the most productive way to work on this is to start a wiki page
>> to summarize what's the available information, what we should store and
>> how to represent it.
>> I'll update this thread as soon as I'll have a first draft finished.
> New design discussions are a little bit late for 9.6 I am afraid :(
> Perhaps we should consider this patch as returned with feedback for
> the time being? The hook approach is not something I'd wish for if we
> can improve in-core facility that would help user to decide better how
> to tune autovacuum parameters.

Yes, it's clearly not suited for the final commitfest. I just closed the
patch as "returned with feedback".

I'll work on the feedbacks I already had to document a wiki page, and
wait for this commitfest to be more or less finished before starting a
new thread on autovacuum instrumentation design.

> The VACUUM progress facility covers a
> different need by helping to track how long a scan is still going to
> take. What we want here is something that would run on top of that.
> Logs at least may be helpful for things like pgbadger.

Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to