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
> 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
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
>
15 matches
Mail list logo