On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:25 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 04:41:03PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > + <structfield>time_delayed</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > I think it's also worth considering names like total_delay and > cumulative_delay.
+1, I vote for total_delay > > + Total amount of time spent in milliseconds waiting during <xref > > linkend="guc-vacuum-cost-delay"/> > > + or <xref linkend="guc-autovacuum-vacuum-cost-delay"/>. In case of > > parallel > > + vacuum the reported time is across all the workers and the leader. > > The > > + workers update the column no more frequently than once per second, > > so it > > + could show slightly old values. > > I wonder if it makes sense to provide this value as an interval instead of > the number of milliseconds to make it more human-readable. I might also > suggest some changes to the description: > > Total accumulated time spent sleeping due to the cost-based vacuum > delay settings (e.g., vacuum_cost_delay, vacuum_cost_limit). This > includes the time that any associated parallel workers have slept, > too. > However, parallel workers report their sleep time no more frequently > than once per second, so the reported value may be slightly stale. > This description looks good. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
