On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 12:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs escribió: > > > Sorry to come in on late on this: That wording is better, but it still > > doesn't explain why it has occurred or what the user should do about it. > > I think we will get other complaints saying "why has my autovacuum been > > canceled?" and "what should I do about this?". > > > > Perhaps it should be > > "canceling autovacuum task; will reschedule when user tasks complete" > > or > > "autovacuum canceled temporarily to allow user task to proceed" > > > > or something that explains that what has happened is a good thing and > > the task that has been canceled will be automatically re-tried. > > Perhaps the added phrase could be put in a errdetail() or something like > that. The problem is detecting that this is really the case. How would > it know that it wasn't user-inflicted?
True. We can say "task will be automatically re-scheduled", so that people understand the message and don't start asking us. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
