On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Em ter, 23 de jan de 2018 às 03:36, Masahiko Sawada < sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > escreveu: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> While reading the code, I realized that the requesting an autovacuum > >> work-item could fail in silence if work-item array is full. So the > >> users cannot realize that work-item is never performed. > >> AutoVacuumRequestWork() seems to behave so from the initial > >> implementation but is there any reason of such behavior? It seems to > >> me that it can be a problem even now that there is only one kind of > >> work-item. Attached patch for fixing it. > > > > > > Seems reasonable but maybe you can use the word "worker" instead of "work > > item" for report message. > > > > Thank you for the comment. > Or can we use the word "work-item" since the commit log and source > code use this word? >
You're correct, I misunderstood it thinking about autovacuum workers and not the internal workitem array. As NUM_WORKITEMS is fixed in 256 we don't have any real feedback if in a real workload this can send a lot of messages to log, so: 1) maybe invent a new GUC to control if we need or not to send this info to log 2) change elevel for DEBUG1 Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io >> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello >> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
