> On Sep 24, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I'm very doubtful this is an improvement. Especially with the upcoming > pluggable storage work making vacuumlazy.c heap specific, while vacuum.c > stays generic. The concept of something like > PROC_VACUUM_FOR_WRAPAROUND, should imo not be pushed down that much > (even if criteria for it might).
That’s already a problem since vacuum logging is spread all over while autovac logging is not. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of vacuum_log() function that immediately provides output for manual vacuums, but aggregates output for autovac. AFAIK that’s the only real reason for autovac logging being a special case today.
