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
>>> 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 foo;
>> ERROR:  permission denied for relation foo
>>
>> Do we really want to start saying public.foo in all such error
>> messages?  To me, that's occasionally helpful but more often just
>> useless chatter.
>>
>> One problem with making this behavior optional is that we'd then need
>> two separate translatable strings in every case, one saying "table %s
>> has problems" and the other saying "table %s.%s has problems".  Maybe
>> we could avoid that via some clever trick, but that's how we're doing
>> it in some existing cases.
>>
>> I have a feeling we're making a small patch with a narrow goal into a
>> giant patch for which everyone has a different goal.
>
> Based on the concerns raised in this thread which are left to address or
> resolve, and the fact that the patch has been without update during the CF, 
> I’m
> marking this Returned with Feedback.  Please re-submit a new version of the
> patch to a future commitfest.
>

After more thought, I'd like to focus this work on only log messages
related to VACUUM. The making all logs show explicit names might not
be good solution so we can leave the more generic solution for other
log messages. But especially for VACUUM VERBOSE log, since the log
messages could be very long when the table has multiple indices this
patch would be useful for users.
Since the previous patch conflicts with current HEAD, attached the
updated patch.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


vacuum_more_explicit_relname_v2.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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
> 
> I'm skeptical about the idea of doing this too generally.
> 
> rhaas=> select * from foo;
> ERROR:  permission denied for relation foo
> 
> Do we really want to start saying public.foo in all such error
> messages?  To me, that's occasionally helpful but more often just
> useless chatter.
> 
> One problem with making this behavior optional is that we'd then need
> two separate translatable strings in every case, one saying "table %s
> has problems" and the other saying "table %s.%s has problems".  Maybe
> we could avoid that via some clever trick, but that's how we're doing
> it in some existing cases.
> 
> I have a feeling we're making a small patch with a narrow goal into a
> giant patch for which everyone has a different goal.

Based on the concerns raised in this thread which are left to address or
resolve, and the fact that the patch has been without update during the CF, I’m
marking this Returned with Feedback.  Please re-submit a new version of the
patch to a future commitfest.

cheers ./daniel

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 foo;
ERROR:  permission denied for relation foo

Do we really want to start saying public.foo in all such error
messages?  To me, that's occasionally helpful but more often just
useless chatter.

One problem with making this behavior optional is that we'd then need
two separate translatable strings in every case, one saying "table %s
has problems" and the other saying "table %s.%s has problems".  Maybe
we could avoid that via some clever trick, but that's how we're doing
it in some existing cases.

I have a feeling we're making a small patch with a narrow goal into a
giant patch for which everyone has a different goal.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 as individual data points.  Grepping logs in order to
>> extract the numbers is lame and slow.
>
> Yes.  And there is a bigger issue here, which is that the output of
> VACUUM VERBOSE is meant to be sent to the client for *human* readability.
> (As you noted, INFO-level messages don't normally go to the server log
> in the first place, and that's not by accident.)  Repeating the full table
> name in every line will be really annoying for that primary use-case.
> I am not sure what we want to do to address Masahiko-san's use-case, but
> ideally his workflow wouldn't involve log-scraping at all.

The use-case I had is that I run vacuumdb *without -j option* and save
all verbose logs into a text file, and then checking it later. I said
vacuumdb with -j option before but it was wrong. It cannot happen two
vacuum verbose logs are emitted mixed together even if -j option is
specified.

I sometimes search a particular table/index from the logs but also in
that case it was hard to distinguish logs. This is still not primary
case though.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 is lame and slow.

Yes.  And there is a bigger issue here, which is that the output of
VACUUM VERBOSE is meant to be sent to the client for *human* readability.
(As you noted, INFO-level messages don't normally go to the server log
in the first place, and that's not by accident.)  Repeating the full table
name in every line will be really annoying for that primary use-case.
I am not sure what we want to do to address Masahiko-san's use-case, but
ideally his workflow wouldn't involve log-scraping at all.  It definitely
shouldn't involve depending on INFO messages --- for one thing, what
happens when those get translated?

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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
>>> RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName()
>>> and then control whether we include this new behaviour with
>>> log_qualified_object_names = on | off
>>
>> Is there any case where we don't want to get non-qualified object
>> names? If users want to get the same log message as what they got so
>> far, it would be better to have a GUC that allows us to switch between
>> the existing behavior and the forcibly logging qualified object names.
>
> I can imagine plenty of cases where providing more information is
> valuable, but not really any where it makes more sense to provide less
> information, so -1 for a GUC to control such behavior. I would imagine
> that people are not going to set it anyway. A RangeVar may not set the
> schema_name, so I would suggest to rely on that to decide if the error
> messages show the schema name or name.

We can put in the GUC if there are objections about backwards
compaibility, so I am OK to leave it out.

> Still we are only talking about
> two messages in the vacuum code paths, which are the ones close to the
> checks where is assigned the OID of the relation with a RangeVar.

The proposal is to change all log messages so we have consistency, not
just VACUUM.

-- 
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 this new behaviour with
>> log_qualified_object_names = on | off
>
> Is there any case where we don't want to get non-qualified object
> names? If users want to get the same log message as what they got so
> far, it would be better to have a GUC that allows us to switch between
> the existing behavior and the forcibly logging qualified object names.

I can imagine plenty of cases where providing more information is
valuable, but not really any where it makes more sense to provide less
information, so -1 for a GUC to control such behavior. I would imagine
that people are not going to set it anyway. A RangeVar may not set the
schema_name, so I would suggest to rely on that to decide if the error
messages show the schema name or name. Still we are only talking about
two messages in the vacuum code paths, which are the ones close to the
checks where is assigned the OID of the relation with a RangeVar.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 add
>> schema names to be more clearly?
>
> 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

Yeah, I was thinking that too. But since there are a lot of message
that output relation name I proposed this for the first step.

> I would also be inclined to do this by changing only the string
> presented, not the actual message string.

+1

> e.g.
> replace RelationGetRelationName() with
> RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName()
> and then control whether we include this new behaviour with
> log_qualified_object_names = on | off

Is there any case where we don't want to get non-qualified object
names? If users want to get the same log message as what they got so
far, it would be better to have a GUC that allows us to switch between
the existing behavior and the forcibly logging qualified object names.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 only for VACUUM
though? I see many messages in various places that need same treatment

I would also be inclined to do this by changing only the string
presented, not the actual message string.
e.g.
replace RelationGetRelationName() with
RelationGetOptionallyQualifiedRelationName()

and then control whether we include this new behaviour with
log_qualified_object_names = on | off

-- 
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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: 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 tables in different schemas and the concurrent vacuum logs
>> > made me hard to distinguish tables. Is there any reasons why we don't
>> > write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? If not, can we add
>> > schema names to be more clearly?
>>
>> That's definitely a good idea. lazy_vacuum_rel() uses in one place
>> dbname.schname.relname for autovacuum. This is an inconsistent bit,
>> but that's not really worth changing and there is always
>> log_line_prefix = '%d'.
>
> Worth keeping in mind that INFO messages do not normally go to the
> server log, but rather only to the client.  If it were a problem at the
> server side, you could also suggest adding %p to the log line prefix to
> disambiguate.  Maybe the scenario where this is a real problem is
> vacuumdb -j ...

Yeah, the situation I encountered is that. Invoke vaucuumdb -j and
save its logs to check later.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 to mix
> data that comes from vacuumdb with the autovacuum data from the server
> log, that's much worse.  Maybe you remember this thread?
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/509300F7.5000803%402ndQuadrant.com
> I'm thinking it would be damn convenient to have both user-invoked
> VACUUM and autovacuum emit some sort of event data which is saved
> somewhere for later analysis.

Ah... A tracker for the history activity. With these kind of things
there need to be a careful design to control data retention as events
keep piling up. Yeah that would be useful to save CPU grepping for
dedicated logs. And we could just have an API to a history table to
which is sent a timestamp, an event name and an object like a JSON
blob or a text array. The stats collector could do the cleanup of the
oldest records by maintaining a counter to know the number of records
it should keep around, defined by a GUC, or a duration to allow
retention of history for this period, say the last X days of events.

For vacuum logs, it would be possible to get things done with saving
this information into a private memory area, and then offer a hook to
let callers do what they want with this data... Not extensible and
ugly, but that would do the work. Still I don't like that.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 I'm
> > allowed some scope creep, I'd say that gathering detailed vacuum info
> > from both autovacuum and user-invoked vacuum in a central place would be
> > very welcome.
> 
> 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 is lame and slow.  If you additionally have to mix
data that comes from vacuumdb with the autovacuum data from the server
log, that's much worse.  Maybe you remember this thread?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/509300F7.5000803%402ndQuadrant.com
I'm thinking it would be damn convenient to have both user-invoked
VACUUM and autovacuum emit some sort of event data which is saved
somewhere for later analysis.

I *did* mention this was scope creep ;-)

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 say that gathering detailed vacuum info
> from both autovacuum and user-invoked vacuum in a central place would be
> very welcome.

Hm. I am not sure what you have in mind here. The existing logs are
spread all other the place, and it is useful to VERBOSE information
when things are being run, bot just once a run has been done (if what
you mean here is to store vacuum verbose-related stats for each
relation in memory and then spawn it all at once, or we could log this
info and also store them).
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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 output only relation name
> > without schema name. I've encountered a situation where there are some
> > same name tables in different schemas and the concurrent vacuum logs
> > made me hard to distinguish tables. Is there any reasons why we don't
> > write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? If not, can we add
> > schema names to be more clearly?
> 
> That's definitely a good idea. lazy_vacuum_rel() uses in one place
> dbname.schname.relname for autovacuum. This is an inconsistent bit,
> but that's not really worth changing and there is always
> log_line_prefix = '%d'. 

Worth keeping in mind that INFO messages do not normally go to the
server log, but rather only to the client.  If it were a problem at the
server side, you could also suggest adding %p to the log line prefix to
disambiguate.  Maybe the scenario where this is a real problem is
vacuumdb -j ...

> 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 say that gathering detailed vacuum info
from both autovacuum and user-invoked vacuum in a central place would be
very welcome.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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
> without schema name. I've encountered a situation where there are some
> same name tables in different schemas and the concurrent vacuum logs
> made me hard to distinguish tables. Is there any reasons why we don't
> write an explicit name in vacuum verbose logs? If not, can we add
> schema names to be more clearly?

That's definitely a good idea. lazy_vacuum_rel() uses in one place
dbname.schname.relname for autovacuum. This is an inconsistent bit,
but that's not really worth changing and there is always
log_line_prefix = '%d'. In vacuum_rel()@vacuum.c, there are a couple
of logs that could be improved as well with the schema name.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers