Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-11-01 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 29 Aug 2017, at 17:21, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this only for VACUUM

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 29 Aug 2017, at 17:21, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this only for VACUUM >> though? I see many messages in various places that need same treatment > >

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this only for VACUUM > though? I see many messages in various places that need same treatment I'm skeptical about the idea of doing this too generally. rhaas=> select * from

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-25 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Hm. I am not sure what you have in mind here. > >> I'm thinking that this data is useful to analyze as a stream of related >> events, rather than

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-24 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hm. I am not sure what you have in mind here. > I'm thinking that this data is useful to analyze as a stream of related > events, rather than as individual data points. Grepping logs in order to > extract the numbers

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On 23 August 2017 at 08:18, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> e.g. >>> replace RelationGetRelationName() with

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> e.g. >> replace RelationGetRelationName() with >> RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName() >> and then control whether we include

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-22 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 15 August 2017 at 02:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > >> Is there any reasons why we don't >> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? > > None. Sounds like a good idea. > >> If not, can we

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-22 Thread Simon Riggs
On 15 August 2017 at 02:27, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Is there any reasons why we don't > write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? None. Sounds like a good idea. > If not, can we add > schema names to be more clearly? Yes, we can. I'm not sure why you would do this

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-15 Thread Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> wrote: >> > Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log >> > message INFO:

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'm thinking that this data is useful to analyze as a stream of related > events, rather than as individual data points. Grepping logs in order to > extract the numbers is lame and slow. If you additionally have

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple of logs that could be > >> improved as well with the schema name. > > > > I agree that there's a lot of room for improvement there. If

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple of logs that could be >> improved as well with the schema name. > > I agree that there's a lot of room for improvement there. If I'm > allowed some scope creep, I'd

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada > wrote: > > Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log > > message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with > > schema name but subsequent vacuum logs

Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log > message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with > schema name but subsequent vacuum logs output only relation name >

[HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log

2017-08-14 Thread Masahiko Sawada
Hi all, Currently vacuum verbose outputs vacuum logs as follows. The first log message INFO: vacuuming "public.hoge" writes the relation name with schema name but subsequent vacuum logs output only relation name without schema name. I've encountered a situation where there are some same name