On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 18:17, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
to know, rather than merely we should expose
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 18:17, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
With the current AV launch algorithm, unless you have very serious
system-wide issues there will be a worker launched into each database
approximately every autovacuum_naptime seconds.
Tom Lane wrote:
So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
to know, rather than merely we should expose every conceivable detail
by default. Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for a
specific table, which we already do expose?
What I actually want
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
to know, rather than merely we should expose every conceivable detail
by default. Why wouldn't a user care more about last AV time for
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What I actually want here is for the time that the last table autovacuum
started, adding to the finish time currently exposed by pg_stat_user_tables.
Now, that would be quite
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:28, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
What I actually want here is for the time that the last table autovacuum
started, adding to the finish time
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
We could also store last_autovacuum_vacuum_duration - is that better
or worse than start and end time?
No, I think you want to know the
I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
pg_stat_database.
Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
I've missed,
Magnus Hagander escreveu:
Was there any particular reason why this wasn't exposed before that
I've missed, making this a bad addition? :-)
Not that I know of. Good catch. ;)
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
was not exposed. The attached patch puts this column in
pg_stat_database.
Was there any particular reason
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I noticed that we were already tracking the information about when an
autovacuum worker was last started in a database, but this information
was not exposed. The attached patch puts
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I'd like to see a positive argument why this is important for users
to know, rather than merely we should expose every conceivable detail
by default. Why wouldn't a user care more
12 matches
Mail list logo
