On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 01:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Ron Mayer wrote:
> >> My reasoning why I thought the log file was more useful was
> >> that only an admin with access to the log files could really
> >> do anything about the message anyway.
> > The log file is useful, but I think showing the VACUUM user is _more_
> > useful than the log file.
> I think that reasoning is fundamentally unsound, because (a) a lot of
> people already do vacuuming via a cron job or autovacuum, and (b)
> autovacuum is definitely the wave of the future. So it's foolish
> to design this messaging around the assumption that there will be
> a human attentive to the on-line output from VACUUM. We should be
> ensuring that the message gets into the postmaster log --- whether
> it gets sent to the client is secondary.
Personally, I prefer the postmaster log as the place for this.
However, whilst vacuum exists as a separate command, there will be an
argument to return a message back to the person running it; we cannot
assume that people would be inattentive.
Possibly the deciding factor should be whether autovacuum makes it fully
into becoming a special backend anytime soon, since in that case only
the log would remain as an option for reporting this message, in that
Can we have both?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly