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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers