On 3/29/19 9:08 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:22:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Yeah, that looks good to me too. I wonder if we really need it as LOG >> though; we don't say anything for actions unless they take more than the >> min duration, so why say something for a no-op that takes almost no time? >> Maybe make it DEBUG1. > I think that this does not justify a WARNING, as that's harmless for > the user even if we use WARNING for other skips (see > vacuum_is_relation_owner). However DEBUG1 is also too low in my > opinion as this log can be used as an indicator that autovacuum is too > much aggressive because there are too many workers for example. I > have seen that matter in some CPU-bound environments. I won't fight > hard if the consensus is to use DEBUG1 though. So, more opinions? > Andrew perhaps? > >
It's really just a matter of housekeeping as I see it, so probably DEBUG1 is right. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
