On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:45 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 14:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I've tinkered with this patch a bit. Sample output:
> > >
> > > LOG: automatic vacuum of table "alvherre.public.foo": index scans: 0
> > > pages: removed 0, 11226 remain
> > > tuples: 1300683 removed, 1096236 remain
> > > system usage: CPU 0.29s/0.38u sec elapsed 2.56 sec
> > >
> > > Please comment.
> > Well, 'tis great except when you have very very frequent autovacuums.
> > That was why I wanted it in 1 log line.
> > Perhaps we need this as an integer, so we can log all vacuums that last
> > for longer in seconds than the setting, 0 logs all. That would
> > significantly reduce the volume if we set it to 5, say. That way you
> > would get your readability and I would get my reasonable size logs.
> It kinda smells funny to have a setting like that. Do we have a
> precedent? If other people is OK with it, I'll do that.
log_temp_files works a bit like that, as does log_min_duration_statement
that would be easier to understand
> Would it work to add a separate GUC var to control the minimum autovac
> time? Also, why do it by time and not by amount of tuples/pages
...because you only want to know about slow vacuums.
Time is a more natural unit than tuples removed.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend