> On Nov 2, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Alena Rybakina <a.rybak...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>>> The second is the interrupts field. It is needed for monitoring to know
>>> do we have them or not, so tracking them on the database level will do
>>> the trick. Interrupt is quite rare event, so once the monitoring system
>>> will catch one the DBA can go to the server log for the details.
>> Just to confirm… by “interrupt” you mean vacuum encountered an error?
> Yes it is.
In that case I feel rather strongly that we should label that as “errors”.
“Interrupt” could mean a few different things, but “error” is very clear.
> I updated patches. I excluded system and user time statistics and save number
> of interrupts only for database.
> I removed the ability to get statistics for all tables, now they can only be
> obtained for an oid table [0], as suggested here. I also renamed the
> statistics from pg_stat_vacuum_tables to pg_stat_get_vacuum_tables and
> similarly for indexes and databases. I noticed that that’s what they’re
> mostly called. Ready for discussion.
>
I think it’s better that the views follow the existing naming conventions
(which don’t include “_get_”; only the functions have that in their names).
Assuming that, the only question becomes pg_stat_vacuum_* vs pg_stat_*_vacuum.
Given the existing precedent of pg_statio_*, I’m inclined to go with
pg_stat_vacuum_*.
